Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 325 (JHR)

Janardan Prasad Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2014-03-03

R.BANUMATHI, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2014
JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioner claiming himself to be a lecturer in a local college having experience in social work and having concern for interest of public at large, has moved this Court. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 3. It is stated that the petitioner submitted an application on 10.11.2011 to the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur requesting inquiry into the illegal sale of public land and for taking action against the persons concerned. It is further stated that on 07.10.2011, the petitioner submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking details of the land in question, but no information was furnished. The petitioner preferred an appeal on 16.07.2011 and he also made an application before the District Sub-Registrar cum Public Information Officer, Pakur on 18.10.2011. The petitioner also submitted an application to the Circle Officer, Pakur under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking name of seller and purchaser of the land in Jamabandi No. 411, Daag No. 1291, total area about 2.11 Kathas. The information furnished to the petitioner revealed that the aforesaid land is not transferable in nature and therefore it cannot be sold. The petitioner made various applications in this regard however, only vague details were furnished to the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner obtained some of the certified copy of the registered sale deeds which were registered by the Officer of the Sub-Registrar, Pakur which reveals the illegal transfer of land which is specified for public use especially for 'Pokhar' to be used by public at large. It is also stated that on 06.08.2011, the Circle Officer, Pakur informed the petitioner that the land under Daag No. 1291 is a 'Pokhar' land and the same cannot be sold or purchased. In the aforesaid facts, the petitioner has filed the present public interest litigation seeking a direction upon the respondents for taking appropriate action for stopping illegal transfer of public land and for directing the respondents to strictly follow the provisions under Section 2035 and other relevant provisions of Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, 1949. A further prayer for taking appropriate legal action against the government officials and the individuals who are responsible for sale and purchase of public land which are not transferable in nature, has also been made. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. A further prayer for taking appropriate legal action against the government officials and the individuals who are responsible for sale and purchase of public land which are not transferable in nature, has also been made. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 4 & 5 refuting the allegations made by the petitioner. It is stated that insofar as, the Plot No. 1291 of Jamabandi No. 622 is concerned, the said plot has been recorded under “Anabadi Khata”. It has been found that a Jamabandi was corrected in respect of the said land in the name of one Anukul Chandra Choudhary. Subsequently, in Tenants Ledger (Register-II), the above entry was struck off and the name of Safikur Raham has been entered, making reference of Mutation Case No. 285 of 197980. Subsequently, Jamabandi has been corrected in the name of other vendees. A Rev. Misc. Case No. 6 of 201213 was started by the Circle Officer, Pakur and it is pending inquiry under Section 4(h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 by the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakur. It is further stated that Plot No. 1291 in mouza-Pakur No. 128 area 2 Bighas 11 Kathas and 8 Dhurs, nature of land (Pokhar) stands recorded under “Anabadi Khata” has reflected in the Khatiyan prepared during cadestral land survey and settlement. A supplementary counter-affidavit dated 21.11.2013 has also been filed stating that by order dated 27.05.2013, the aforesaid Jamabandis have been cancelled and the Anchal Adhikari, Pakur has corrected the Jamabandi Registere that is, Register-II. It is further stated that insofar as, plot nos. 105 and 42 of mouza Pakur No. 128 are concerned, these plots are not subjectmatter of public interest litigation however, it is stated that as per entry in survey Khatiyan, these plots are Raiyati land. Plot No. 105 of mouza Pakur No. 128 stands recorded in Khata No. 62 as “UDVASTU” in the name of Kalipado Poddar s/o Siris Poddar and presently the said land is recorded in the RegisterII in the name of Marjina Biwi w/o Abdul Mannan Ansari vide Mutation Case No. 213 of 200506. Similarly, Plot No. 42 of mouza Pakur No. 128 in Khata No. 216 an area of 00 Bigha 07 Katha 17 Dhur as “BariI” is recorded in the name of Sri Pati Sardar s/o Gurudayal Sardar in Survey Khatiyan. Similarly, Plot No. 42 of mouza Pakur No. 128 in Khata No. 216 an area of 00 Bigha 07 Katha 17 Dhur as “BariI” is recorded in the name of Sri Pati Sardar s/o Gurudayal Sardar in Survey Khatiyan. At present the said land recorded in the Register-II in the name of Raghuram Barai in Holding No. 654. Rent receipts are being regularly issued in the name of the above mentioned both raiyats. 5. An intervention application being I. A. No. 7623 of 2013 has been filed by Chunchun Kapri and others alleging that the petitioner filed the public interest litigation targeting the land belonging to the intervenors for extraneous considerations and with oblique motive. It is stated that no substantial public interest is involved and the present petition is aimed to ensure personal gain for private and oblique motive and it has been filed by a busy body. It is indicated that the subject-matter of the present petition is already sub-judice before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3684 of 2013 wherein the present intervenors have challenged order dated 27.05.2013 by which the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur has cancelled the Jamabandi in the name of the intervenors with respect to Jamabandi No. 622, plot No. 1291, total area 2 Bighas 11 Kathas and 8 Dhurs. 6. The petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit questioning the land pertaining to Daag No. 105 situated at village Virgopalpur and Daag No. 42 situated at village Madanmohanpur stating that the said lands though recorded as 'Pokhar' land have been sold to land mafias and various other individuals. 7. Mr. Binod Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the documents on record clearly indicate that the lands in question are public land and recorded as 'Pokhar' land however, the said lands have illegally been transferred to the individuals in contravention of various provisions of the Santhal Parganas Act, 1949 and therefore, substantial public interest is involved in the present petition. Referring to the sale deed, some of the applications moved before the respondent authority and the information obtained by the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an appropriate direction is required to be given to the concerned respondents for taking necessary action as prayed for in the present public interest litigation. 8. Per contra, Mr. Referring to the sale deed, some of the applications moved before the respondent authority and the information obtained by the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an appropriate direction is required to be given to the concerned respondents for taking necessary action as prayed for in the present public interest litigation. 8. Per contra, Mr. Rajesh Shankar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent – State of Jharkhand submitted that there is no public interest involved in the present petition. The present petition is confined to only one plot, that is, Plot No. 1291 in Jamabandi No. 622 which is recorded as “Anabadi Pokhar”. The learned counsel has further submitted that since the said land was wrongly recorded in the name of one Anukul Chandra Choudhary, necessary steps have been taken in the matter and vide order dated 27.05.2013, the Jamabandi has been cancelled however, the said order has been impugned by the intervenors before this Hon'ble Court and vide order dated 19.07.2013 an order of “status quo” has been passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3684 of 2013. 9. Having carefully considered the rival submissions made by the counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the view that the present public interest litigation is liable to be dismissed. In the present petition, the petitioner initially raised a dispute with respect to Plot No. 1291 and this has been brought on record that the Jamabandi with respect to the said plot has been cancelled vide order dated 27.05.2013 and the said order is under challenge before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3684 of 2013. With respect to other two plots, that is, Plot No. 105 and Plot No. 42, the respondents have categorically stated that these plots are Raiyati land. Plot No. 105 is recorded as “UDVASTU” in the name of one Kalipado Poddar and Plot No. 42 is “BariI” and recorded in the name of one Sri Pati Sardar son of Gurudayal Sardar. The dispute with respect to Plot No. 1291 is being litigated by the intervenors. It is apparent that the matter was pending before the Revenue Court and upon adjudication vide order dated 27.05.2013, the Jamabandi with respect to Plot No. 1291 has been cancelled and Jamabandi in Register-II has been corrected by deleting the name of the persons. The dispute with respect to Plot No. 1291 is being litigated by the intervenors. It is apparent that the matter was pending before the Revenue Court and upon adjudication vide order dated 27.05.2013, the Jamabandi with respect to Plot No. 1291 has been cancelled and Jamabandi in Register-II has been corrected by deleting the name of the persons. The claim with respect to the said land is presently pending before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3684 of 2013. 10. It has been held in catena of decisions that only a person acting bonafide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL, alone would have locus standi to approach the Court. In “Kansing Kalusing Thakore & Ors. Vs. Rabari Maganbhai Vashrambhai & Ors.”, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 360 , when a person in illegal occupancy of land approached the Court without adding necessary party in the proceeding, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the writ petition was an abuse of the process of Court. 11. In “Santosh Sood Vs. Gajendra Singh & Ors.”, reported in (2009) 7 SCC 314 , a case in which civil suit was pending however, in a PIL when the High Court passed an order of dispossession of petitioner, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that except for cogent reasons, in PIL High Court would not interfere with due process of law. 12. In the present case, a Rev. Misc. Case No. 6 of 201213 was started by the Circle Officer, Pakur and a proceeding was initiated vide RMMP Case No. 4 of 201314 in the Court of Deputy Commissioner, Pakur. Vide order dated 27.05.2013 in RMMP Case No. 4 of 201314, the Jamabandi with respect to Plot No. 1291 was cancelled and the said order is under challenge before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3684 of 2013. It is thus apparent that the matter has been litigated by the concerned parties in the Revenue Court and presently the issue is pending before this Court. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any substance in the present public interest litigation and accordingly it is dismissed. PIL dismissed.