Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 887 (JHR)

Hiramani Manjhian v. Sharat Coking Coal limited

2008-08-07

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2008
Order This application has been filed by the petitioner praying for issuance of a direction to the respondents prohibiting them from providing compensation and employment to 7 persons namely respondents No. 7 to 13 and for further direction to the respondents no. 1 to 5 to terminate the services of the respondents No. 7 to 13 who have been given employment under the respondents. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she IS the legal heir of the deceased Nandu Manjhi who died intestate leaving behind his two daughters, namely the present petitioner and resprdent No.6. It is claimed by the petitioner on the basis of the genealogical table that the common ancestor namely Mansa Manjhi had two sons, Nandu Manjhi (father of the petitioner) and Teta Manjhi. The said Teta Manjhi died issueless and the entire property of the family devolved upon Nandu Manjhi. The land measuring 10.72 which was inherited and possessed by the petitioner's father Nandu Manjhi, was situated at Basantimali colliery. The said land were acquired by Dahibari colliery of the Bharat Coking Coal Limited for the purpose of mining and other activities. 3. Under a package deal between the Management of Bharat Coking Coal Limited and the persons whose lands were acquired, it was decided that 7 persons would be provided with employment lieu of their 10.72 acres of land. The petitioner claiming herself to be the legal heir and representative of the deceased had filed her representation both for compensation as well as for employment in terms of the package deal. The grievance of the petitioner is that her claim has been rejected and compensation and employment has been awarded to 7 persons, i.e. respondent No. 7 to 13 who are totally strangers to the family of the petitioner and have no right, title and interest over the land acquired by the respondent company. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 5 as well as on behalf of respondents 6 and respondents No. 7 to 13. 5. The stand taken by the private respondents No. 7 to 13, is that the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts and the present writ petition is not maintainable as because by the very nature of the dispute raised, it is a dispute for adjudication by the civil court since it involves matters relating to facts. 5. The stand taken by the private respondents No. 7 to 13, is that the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts and the present writ petition is not maintainable as because by the very nature of the dispute raised, it is a dispute for adjudication by the civil court since it involves matters relating to facts. It has been explained in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has advanced her claim of purported title over the land which. as a matter of fact, she does not have at all. This is in view of the fact that the father of the petitioner had transferred the disputed land by way of sale to the respondents 7 to 13 and such transfer was effected after obtaining permission from the Deputy Commissioner who is the competent authority under Section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. It is further contended that the transfer of the land was in respect of a total area measuring 60 decimals out of 97 decimals in plot no. 499 and pursuant to the execution of the sale deed, the private respondents were put in possession of the land. It is also contended that the uncle of the petitioner namely Teta Manjhi during his life time, and ½ share of his father's property and by virtue of a registered deed of gift, he had transferred his share in the aforesaid property in favour of his niece, the respondent No.6 and as such, the petitioner's father Nandu Manjhi and respondent No. 6 held and possessed land of the common ancestor, in equal shares Since Nandu Manjhi during his life time. had transferred right, title and interest in respect of his share of land in favour of private respondents and since the title of land stood in the names of the private respondents at the time when the respondent Company had come to acquire the land, the claim of the private respondents was accepted and they were eligible for the benefit under the package deal over the land acquired. It is also contended that employment to the private respondents was given on the basis of the fact that they were made nominees for employment even by father of the petitioner and by the respondent No. 6 by execution of the legal document in favour of' respondent No.1. It is also contended that employment to the private respondents was given on the basis of the fact that they were made nominees for employment even by father of the petitioner and by the respondent No. 6 by execution of the legal document in favour of' respondent No.1. It is also pointed out that in respect of the land under reference a title suit is also pending before the civil court. 6. In her counter affidavit, respondent No. 6 who is the own sister of the petitioner has acknowledged that her father had transferred his own share in the land in favour of private respondents and such transfer was effected only after obtaining permission from the authority competent under the provisions of Section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. Respondent No.6 has also confirmed that the title suit in respect of the claim of the petitioner is pending before the civil court. Her further contention is that Nandu Manjhi had voluntarily transferred his share of land in favour of private respondents and declaration to this effect was also made by Nandu Manjhi before respondent No. 1 and as such, on the basis of benefit of legitimate right over the land, .they are entitled to claim the benefit of the package deal for acquisition of the land by respondent No.1. 7. It appears that the fact that the title suit is pending for adjudication of the dispute over the title, has also been admitted by the petitioner in the writ petition. However, the stand taken by her is that since the Title Suit is pending in the competent court for adjudication on the rival claim of title of the parties over the acquired land, the respondent No. 1 should not have declared the private .respondents to be the beneficiaries of the package deal. It is also argued that whereas as per the package deal, for every two acres of land one person was to be employed, yet, in the present case, against 10.72 acres of land, as many as seven employments were given to the private respondents in hot haste and in a most arbitrary manner. 8. From the pleadings stated by the petitioner and the respondents, it appears that the dispute essentially involves the claim of title advanced by the petitioner which is denied by the respondents. Prima facie, there is basis for denial of the claim of the petitioner. 8. From the pleadings stated by the petitioner and the respondents, it appears that the dispute essentially involves the claim of title advanced by the petitioner which is denied by the respondents. Prima facie, there is basis for denial of the claim of the petitioner. From the document of transfer and the declaration made by respondent No. 6 who IS the own sister of the petitioner it is prima facie evident that on the date of the acquisition of the land, It had already stood transferred from the previous owner to the private respondents. 9. The dispute which is sought to be raised by the petitioner is that transfer of land by Nandu Manjhi is totally illegal and contrary to law and even if such transfer deed was executed by the petitioner's father, it was under undue influence by the private respondents. These are matters which can be considered by the fact finding court. The title suit is admittedly pending before the civil court where all the disputes raised by the petitioner in this case in respect of her claim to the land have been already raised. 10. In the light of the documents placed on record by the private respondents supported by respondent No.6, there IS no material to suggest that the respondent No. 1 have acted illegally and in hot haste in giving the benefit under the package deal to private respondents. It may be noticed that though such benefit was given to the private respondents, but it was under an indemnity bond executed by the respondents under which the benefit granted to them can be withdrawn if it is found subsequently that their claim to the land is not correct. 11. Under such circumstances; it would not be proper at this stage to disturb the present. state of affairs and to withdraw the benefit given to the private respondents by respondent No.1. 12. For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this application and therefore this application is dismissed. 11. Under such circumstances; it would not be proper at this stage to disturb the present. state of affairs and to withdraw the benefit given to the private respondents by respondent No.1. 12. For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this application and therefore this application is dismissed. However, it is specifically mentioned that since the claim of the petitioner with regard to the title over the land acquired is pending adjudication before the civil court the decision of the civil court will be the guiding factor and in the event the claim of the petitioner is allowed in her favour then the petitioner may file her claim be fore the respondent No. 1 for awarding the benefit under the package deal to her and for withdrawal to the benefits already granted to the private respondents No. 7 to 13.