Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 607 (JHR)

Pashupati Narayan Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2008-06-18

N.N.TIWARI

body2008
Order In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondent No. 2 for issuance of 'No Objection Certificate' to sell his land, situated under Mauza Nirsa, Thana No. 72, Khata No. 177, Plot No. 1580 and area 2.3/4 decimals. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner is a lawful owner of the said land and in exercise of his ownership, he wanted to sell the same. When the petitioner went to the Registration Office for the purpose executing a sale deed, the registering authority asked to bring 'No Objection Certificate' from the Additional Collector, as per the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad. It has been stated that there is no such provision in law, yet the petitioner has been asked to produce a 'No Objection Certificate'. The Additional Collector also arbitrarily refused to grant 'No Objection Certificate' to the petitioner on the ground that the land was Gair Abad Malik. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating, inter alia, that there is no provision for grant of 'No Objection Certificate' for sale of a raiyati land. The practice in Dhanbad District was being followed in view of the direction issued by the then Deputy Commissioner. The requirement of 'No Objection Certificate' was assailed in W.P.(C) No. 4277 of 2006 by Mohini Mohan Das & Ors. VS. State of Jharkhand & Ors., in which the impugned order of the Additional Collector was set aside. The said order was challenged in Letters Patent Appeal, being L.P.A. No. 08/2007, and the said appeal was dismissed. The respondents, thereafter, preferred Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was also dismissed in limine. 4. In view of such decision of this Court now 'No Objection Certificate' is not required for registering any deed of transfer in the registry office. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. Since the respondents have themselves taken stand that 'No Objection Certificate' is now not required in view of the earlier decision of this Court, no direction is required to be issued by this Court to that regard. 6. It is made clear that if the petitioner presents the deed for transfer, the registry thereof shall not be refused for want of 'No Objection Certificate'. 7. 6. It is made clear that if the petitioner presents the deed for transfer, the registry thereof shall not be refused for want of 'No Objection Certificate'. 7. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that while refusing to grant 'No Objection Certificate' to the petitioner, the learned Additional Collector, Dhanbad has delved into the question of right and ownership of the petitioner over the land, in question, which is beyond his jurisdiction. The name of the petitioner and predecessor-in-interest had been mutated long ago and they have been paying rent to the State, the State respondent has already accepted the petitioner as raiyat of the said land. However, in the impugned order learned Additional Collector has observed that the land is a Gair Abad of Ex-landlord and that the petitioner has got no right over the same and he has no legal basis. The action of the Additional Collector recommending annulment of the settlement of the said land is in violation of the provisions of Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, that too without holding any enquiry required under law, is also perverse, arbitrary and illegal. The said order, thus, cannot stand. I find much substance in the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. Learned J.C. to S.C. (L&C) appearing on behalf of the respondents also fairly admitted that the observation regarding the nature of right, title to the land for grant of 'No Objection Certificate' was not warranted and the impugned order to that extent cannot be legally supported. 9. In view of the said discussion, the impugned order dated 17.8.2006 passed by Additional Collector, Dhanbad, passed in Case No. 2/2006-07 (as contained in Annexure-4) cannot be allowed to sustain and the same is hereby quashed. 10. The writ petition is allowed.