Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 266 (JHR)

Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. Mahendra Pal Bhatia

2015-02-19

D.N.PATEL, PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2015
Order D.N. Patel, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 4269 of 2000 dated 20th June, 2013 whereby, the writ petition preferred by the respondents was allowed and the order passed by the District Judge, Dhanbad under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 dated 28th September, 2000 in Misc. Appeal No. 33 of 1989 was quashed and set aside. Being aggrieved by this decision the original respondent has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Counsel for the appellant submitted that : the original owner of the property in question i.e. plot no. 553 to 564, Mouza Dhanbad being Mouza No. 53, Khata No. 14, measuring 20 Kathas was owned by Chirku Mahto and others prior to 1945. by virtue of sale deed dated 5th February, 1945, the original owners of the land in question sold away the property to one Jamini Mohan Mazumdar. This sale deed is a bone of contention in this matter because it is argued by the counsel for this appellant that this Jamini Mohan Mazumdar, who is purchaser of the property in question from 5th February, 1945, was also incidentally the Manager of Godhur East Colliery and therefore, it is argued by the counsel for the appellant that the property in question was sold to Godhur East Colliery and as the property belongs to this colliery by the virtue of Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 especially under Section 4 thereof, the land in question is now vested in the appellant. Jamini Mohan Mazumdar by virtue of 4 separate sale deeds sold away the property to the present respondents (original petitioners) and as there was nationalisation of the property in question this sale deed has no value in the eye of law because the property was vested in the appellant due to Section 4 of the Act, 1973, which came into effect from 1st May, 1973 and therefore, proceeding were initiated before the Estate Officer under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. this Estate Officer decided the matter in favour of the respondents (original petitioners) vide order dated 8th March, 1989 in Eviction Case No. 210 of 1984. an appeal under Section 9 of the Act, 1971 was preferred by this appellant before the District Judge, Dhanbad being Misc. this Estate Officer decided the matter in favour of the respondents (original petitioners) vide order dated 8th March, 1989 in Eviction Case No. 210 of 1984. an appeal under Section 9 of the Act, 1971 was preferred by this appellant before the District Judge, Dhanbad being Misc. Appeal No. 33 of 1989, which was allowed by the District Judge, Dhanbad vide judgment and order dated 28th September, 2000 against which the respondents preferred writ petition being CWJC No. 4269 of 2000 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 20th June, 2013. The major error committed by the learned Single Judge is that the land in question was already vested in the colliery by virtue of sale deed dated 5th February, 1945 thereafter, there was Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1993 and this is how the appellant became the owner of the property and the subsequent letter made by Jamini Mohan Mazumdar in favour of the respondents (original petitioners) is infact no sale at all in the eye of law because nobody can pass better title than what he is having. The vendor viz. Jamini Mohan Mazumdar was seized to be the owner of the property as the land in question was already vested in the appellant because of the nationalisation of the Act. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may kindly be allowed. 3. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the original owners viz. Chirku Mahto and others have executed a registered sale deed vide order dated 5th February, 1945 in favour of Jamini Mohan Mazumdar. He was initially Manager of the Colliery that does not mean that the land was sold away to Godhur East Colliery and therefore, there is no question of any Nationalisation Act of 1973 applicable to the land in question. The land was sold by Chirku Mahto and others to Jamini Mohan Mazumdar in his personal and individual capacity. It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondents (original petitioners) that the appellant has failed to prove that the consideration was moved by Godhur East Colliery. The land was sold by Chirku Mahto and others to Jamini Mohan Mazumdar in his personal and individual capacity. It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondents (original petitioners) that the appellant has failed to prove that the consideration was moved by Godhur East Colliery. It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 is not applicable to the land in question, unless it is unambiguously established that the land in question was belonging to the appellant. Looking to the aforesaid aspects of the matter the land in question was never belonging to the appellant and therefore, before the applicability of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, the appellant must establish their ownership upon the property in question and thus, the dispute of title or the dispute about the ownership of the property in question can be settled only by filling the suit under Section 15 in the lowest available Court as per Code of Civil Procedure. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single judge while allowing the writ petition preferred by these respondents. 4. It is further submitted by the respondents (original petitioners) that sale deed dated 5th February, 1945 reveals that the property in question was sold to Jamini Mohan Mazumdar and he being the owner sold away by four different sale deeds dated 17th January, 1984 to the present respondents. In the revenue record also mutation entries have been carried out by the State authorities. Possession of the property in question is also with the present respondents and previously, it was with predecessors in title of the respondents. Unless in a suit it is established that the appellant is the owner of the property, Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 cannot be resorted to and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court. 5. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal mainly for the following facts and reasons:- (i) The property in question is plot no. 553 to 564 of Khata No. 14 of Mouza Dhanbad being Mouza No. 53. The property in question is measuring 20 Kathas of land. 553 to 564 of Khata No. 14 of Mouza Dhanbad being Mouza No. 53. The property in question is measuring 20 Kathas of land. (ii) It is presumed by this appellant that they are the owner of the property in question and they have started proceeding before the Estate Officer being Eviction Case No. 210 of 1984 and Estate Officer dismissed the claim of this appellant vide order dated 08.03.1989. (iii) Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the order of the Estate Officer this appellant preferred Misc. Appeal No. 33 of 1989 before the District Judge, Dhanbad under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 which was allowed by the District Judge, Dhanbad vide order dated 28th September, 2000. (iv) Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the judgment and order passed by the District Judge in Misc. Appeal No. 33 of 1989, the respondents preferred CWJC No. 4269 of 2000 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 20th June, 2013 and hence, the original respondent preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. (v) It appears that the land in question was originally owned by Chirku Mahto and others prior to 5th February, 1945. (vi) Chirku Mahto and others entered into registered sale deed dated 5th February, 1945 in favour of one Jamini Mohan Mazumdar in the narration of this person as a purchaser it has been mentioned that he is getting his livelihood as a Manager of Godhur East Colliery. The methodology of getting livelihood by the purchaser is narrated in the sale deed. This has become a bone of contention for this appellant that the land in question belongs to Godhur East Colliery and not to Jamini Mohan Mazumdar. We are not accepting this contention. Looking to the sale deed dated 5th February, 1945 which has been read over by the counsel for the appellant and it is approved by the respondents as the document dated 5th February, 1945 is in a Bengali language. It has been narrated that the purchaser is Jamini Mohan Mazumdar. If these facts are explicitly clear from the sale deed dated 5th February, 1945 merely because, incidentally, he was Manager of Godhur East Colliery that does not mean that the land was sold by Chirku Mahto and others to Godhur East Colliery. It has been narrated that the purchaser is Jamini Mohan Mazumdar. If these facts are explicitly clear from the sale deed dated 5th February, 1945 merely because, incidentally, he was Manager of Godhur East Colliery that does not mean that the land was sold by Chirku Mahto and others to Godhur East Colliery. (vii) Appellant has failed to prove before any of the Authority that the consideration was paid by Godhur East Colliery when the sale deed was entered into dated 5th February, 1945. (viii) Thus, there is presumption on the part of this appellant that the consideration must have been moved from Godhur East Colliery to Chirku Mahto and others for purchase of the property in question through registered sale deed dated 5th February, 1945. This bare assertion on the part of the appellant has got no value in the eye of law unless, this assertion is proved by any documentary evidence. Hundred possibilities cannot be equated with one truth. This narration of Jamini Mohan Mazumdar that he was Manager in the colliery never gives a presumption that the property was purchased by Godhur East Colliery. These facts are yet to be established by the appellant. (ix) Thus, it appears that Godhur East Colliery was never the owner of the property in question by virtue of sale deed dated 5th February, 1945 and therefore, Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 is not applicable to the property in question because the land was never belongs to Godhur East Colliery. (x) Privately purchased property by Jamini Mohan Mazumdar is never nationalised by virtue of Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973. Private and individual property remains as they are and therefore, he transferred the ownership of the property, by four different registered sale deeds dated 17th January, 1984 to the respondents. (xi) As the respondents are successors in title of Jamini Mohan Mazumdar by virtue of registered sale deed dated 17th January, 1984 they had gone for mutation entries to be recorded in their favour. (xii) It is admitted fact as submitted by the counsel for both the sides that the mutation entries for the land in question is in favour of the respondents from 1984 onwards. Thus, it appears that from 1984 this appellant has never raised any objection upon such mutation. Prior to 17th January, 1984, in the revenue records, the name of Jamini Mohan Mazumdar was already mutated. Thus, it appears that from 1984 this appellant has never raised any objection upon such mutation. Prior to 17th January, 1984, in the revenue records, the name of Jamini Mohan Mazumdar was already mutated. Thus, since long in the revenue entries there are names of the present respondents and their predecessor-in-title as mutated looking to the sale deed of the year 1945 and four sale deeds of the year 1984. (xiii) It further appears that whenever there is highly disputed facts about the title of a land whether it is a public property or it is a private property, to such property Public Premises (Eviction of Un-authorised Occupants) Act, 1971 cannot be applicable unless the belligerent fact about the title of the property in question is established, by any competent court of civil jurisdiction. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition preferred by the respondents. 6. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petition preferred by the respondents. We therefore, upheld the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 4269 of 2000 dated 20th June, 2013. 7. There is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal is hereby, dismissed. LPA dismissed.