Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1196 (JHR)

Kamal Nayan Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2014-12-02

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2014
Judgment : Aggrieved by order dated 06.08.2002 in Khas Mahal Appeal No. 03 of 2001 and orders dated 24.09.2007 and 16.09.2009, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The brief facts of the case as stated in the writ petition are that, on 25.08.1990, an application for transfer of lease in favour of one Janki Devi and Reena Singh was submitted. A proceeding was initiated by the Deputy Commissioner and vide order dated 03.06.1999 and, a report was sought from Khas Mahal Officer, who recommended vide report dated 02.07.1999 for transfer in lieu of payment of 50% of the value of land. On 24.07.1999, the Deputy Commissioner closed the proceeding and ordered for taking further action for transfer of land in question in favour of the said Janki Devi and Reena Devi. In the meantime, notification/ instruction dated 11.03.1993 was issued by the then State of Bihar. The State of Bihar (now State of Jharkhand) preferred an appeal against order dated 24.07.1999 and the appeal was allowed vide order dated 06.08.2002. A communication contained in letter dated 13.11.2006 was issued to the petitioner, the power of attorney holder of lessee requiring the lessee to make payment of an amount of Rs. 12,92,000/- as Salami for transfer. Vide letter dated 18.07.2007, the petitioner objected to the said demand and offered conditional deposit of Rs.6,12,000/- Thereafter, vide communication dated 24.09.2007, an amount of Rs.48,28,000/- has been demanded from the petitioner as Salami for transfer of the land in question. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent State of Jharkhand supporting order dated 24.09.2007. It is stated that the notification dated 11.03.1993 is applicable in the present case and the Salami has been calculated in terms of notification dated 11.03.1993. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. Mr. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent State of Jharkhand supporting order dated 24.09.2007. It is stated that the notification dated 11.03.1993 is applicable in the present case and the Salami has been calculated in terms of notification dated 11.03.1993. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. Mr. Ananda Sen, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the proceeding of the Case No. 19 of 1999 would reveal that an application was filed on behalf of Janki Devi and Reena Singh in the year, 1990 and on the said application, the proceeding bearing Case No. 19 of 1999 was initiated and an order was passed on 24.07.1999 by the Deputy Commissioner issuing direction for taking steps for transfer of the land in question and therefore, the Salami for transfer cannot be fixed, and the valuation of the land in question cannot be done, in view of notification dated 11.03.1993. The proceeding in the present case indicates that an amount of Rs.12,24,000/- was determined as Salami however, subsequently the said amount was increased to Rs.12,92,000/- and finally the petitioner has been directed to pay an amount of Rs.48,28,000/- It is thus submitted that the amount which was initially calculated, that is, the amount of Rs.12,92,000/- would be the amount which the respondent State of Jharkhand can realise as Salami from the petitioner and the communication contained in letter dated 24.09.2007 is apparently arbitrary and it cannot be imposed upon the petitioner as a condition for transfer of the land in question. 6. Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Singh, J.C. to S.C. (Mines) appearing for the respondent State of Jharkhand reiterated the stand taken in the counter-affidavit. 7. A perusal of the materials on record indicates that the first communication to the petitioner was made vide letter dated 13.11.2006 whereby, an amount of Rs.12,92,000/- has been fixed as Salami for transfer of the land in question. The offer contained in letter dated 13.11.2006 was not accepted by the petitioner rather, the petitioner vide letter dated 18.07.2007 offered a conditional payment of amount of Rs.6,12,000/- I am of the opinion that the offer contained in letter dated 13.11.2006 did not fructify into a concluded contract and therefore, 6 years thereafter, the petitioner cannot insist on payment of an amount of Rs.12,92,000/-only as Salami for transfer of the land in question. Vide communication dated 24.09.2007, the petitioner is required to pay an amount of Rs.48,28,000/- The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a dispute with respect to the valuation of the land. I am of the view that insofar as, the valuation of the land is concerned, the said issue cannot be agitated by the petitioner in this Court more particularly, when no conclusive material has been produced by the petitioner challenging the said valuation. Though the application dated 25.08.1990 has not been placed on the records, admittedly a decision to transfer the land was taken for the first time on 24.07.1999. A constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Janardhan Reddy Vs. State” reported in AIR 1951 SC 124 has held “prima facie” every legislation is perspective. No doubt, operation of the circular dated 11.03.1993 would be perspective and it cannot be applied retrospectively. Though, the petitioner has claimed that it submitted application on 25.08.1990, a proceeding was initiated only on 30.01.1999 in which the Deputy Commissioner passed an order on 24.07.1999 and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that the circular dated 11.03.1993 cannot be applied in the present case. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in this case and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.