Chandravati Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.

Chandravati Devi vs State of Jharkhand and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Jun 16, 2008

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/521698

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/521698
Court: Jharkhand High Court
Judge: Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.
Decided On: Jun 16, 2008
Subject: Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. Articles 12 & 226: [M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J., Narendra Nath Tiwari & D.P.Singh, JJ] Writ petition - Maintainability - Whether State Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd., is a State within meaning of Article 12 ? - Held, From perusal of relevant Rules of byelaws, it is clear that St...

Key legal issue: Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Chandravati Devi

Respondent

State of Jharkhand and anr.

Legal References

Reported In: [2008(4)JCR193(Jhr)]

Excerpt

- constitution of india. articles 12 & 226: [m. karpaga vinayagam, c.j., narendra nath tiwari & d.p.singh, jj] writ petition - maintainability - whether state co-operative milk producers federation ltd., is a state within meaning of article 12 ? - held, from perusal of relevant rules of byelaws, it is clear that state government has no role to play either in policy decision for raising funds for federation or its expenditure and thus have no financial control. further there is nothing to indicate that government has any functional and administrative control over federation. state government has no role to play in matter of appointment of any of officials of federation including managing director. federation is totally independent in all respects and in no way subservient to state government in conduct of its business. federation in no way can be termed as agency of state government and does not come within meaning of article 12 of constitution. writ petitions against federation is not maintainable. .....of the above, it has been stated that now there is no requirement of any no objection certificate in the registration or transfer of a raiyatt land by the registering authority.7. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and also considered the facts and materials on record. in view of the decision of this court, which has been confirmed up to the hon'ble supreme court, since a clear stand has been taken by the respondents that 'no objection certificate is no longer required for transfer of a raiyati land', the petitioner's cause to that regard does not survive.8. however, the impugned order of the additional collector deciding the issue relating to the nature of the petitioner's right, title is wholly without jurisdiction and illegal. the said order is also contrary to the terms of the order dated 13.9.2006 passed in w.p.(c) no. 5175/2006 in the same matter and in the writ petition filed by chandravati devi wherein it was found that the petitioner's right, title and interest in respect of the land in question was not disputed and the petitioner's name was mutated and rent receipts were being granted in her favour and there was no reason for making such enquiry by the additional collector and rejecting the application for granting no objection certificate.9. in spite of that, the additional collector has entered into the issue of right, title of the petitioner and has made unnecessary observation that the ownership cannot be acquired in the land in question which is a land of gair abad malik khata and as such permission cannot be granted for transfer of the said land.10. it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that against the earlier order passed in w.p.(c) no. 5175/ 2006, no appeal was preferred by the state. the said order is final and the additional collector cannot enter into such issue in view of the terms of the order dated 13.9.2006 passed in w.p.(c) no. 5175/ 2006. i find much substance in the petitioner's submissions. the order.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.

1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 2.7.2007 passed by the respondents refusing to grant No Objection Certificate to the petitioner for the purpose of transferring the land appertaining to khata No. 252, plot No. 599, Village Chirkunda, Thana No. 252, District-Dhanbad measuring an area of 1.5 decimals as required by the registering authority. The impugned order has been passed rejecting the application filed by the petitioner in compliance of the order dated 13.9.2006 passed in WP C) No. 5175/2006.

2. It has been stated that earlier the petitioner had moved this Court for the same relief in W.P.(C) No. 5175/2006. By order dated 13.9.2006 the said writ petition was disposed of holding that in view of the clear entries in revenue record, no enquiry to that respect is required by the revenue authority. The order for making such enquiry was held to be wholly arbitrary and illegal. The order dated 6.7.2006 passed by the Additional Collector for such enquiry was quashed. The petitioner was directed to file a fresh application, if such certificate for transfer of the said land is still required.

3. It has been stated that after the said order, the petitioner had again applied for 'No Objection Certificate' before the Additional Collector, Dhanbad. The Additional Collector again refused to grant 'No Objection Certificate', almost on the same ground. The Additional Collector has not only rejected the petitioner's prayer, but also has delved into the issue of title and has held that since the land was recorded as Gair Abad Malik, 'No Objection for Sale' cannot be granted.

4. It has been submitted that the order of the Additional Collector is not only whimsical, arbitrary and illegal, but the same is violation of the terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5175/ 2006.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Additional Collector contesting the writ petition and stating, inter alia, that there is no provision for granting No Objection Certificate for sale of raiyati land. This practice is followed in the District of Dhanbad. In view of the direction issued by the Deputy Commissioner that no registration of sale shall be made without producing No Objection Certificate issued by the revenue authority.

6. The said order of requirement of No Objection Certificate was challenged in W.P(C) No. 4277/2006. In the said writ petition it was held that there is no provision in law requiring 'No Objection Certificate' for transferring the raiyati land and the objection of the Registrar or the concerned authority was without jurisdiction. The said order was challenged in appeal in L.P.A. No. 8/2007. The appeal was dismissed and the said order was upheld. Against the said order the respondents had preferred S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The same was also dismissed. In view of the above, it has been stated that now there is no requirement of any No Objection Certificate in the registration or transfer of a raiyatt land by the registering authority.

7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also considered the facts and materials on record. In view of the decision of this Court, which has been confirmed up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, since a clear stand has been taken by the respondents that 'No Objection Certificate is no longer required for transfer of a raiyati land', the petitioner's cause to that regard does not survive.

8. However, the impugned order of the Additional Collector deciding the issue relating to the nature of the petitioner's right, title is wholly without jurisdiction and illegal. The said order is also contrary to the terms of the order dated 13.9.2006 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5175/2006 in the same matter and in the writ petition filed by Chandravati Devi wherein it was found that the petitioner's right, title and interest in respect of the land in question was not disputed and the petitioner's name was mutated and rent receipts were being granted in her favour and there was no reason for making such enquiry by the Additional Collector and rejecting the application for granting No Objection Certificate.

9. In spite of that, the Additional Collector has entered into the issue of right, title of the petitioner and has made unnecessary observation that the ownership cannot be acquired in the land in question which is a land of Gair Abad Malik Khata and as such permission cannot be granted for transfer of the said land.

10. It has been submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that against the earlier order passed in W.P.(C) No. 5175/ 2006, no appeal was preferred by the State. The said order is final and the Additional Collector cannot enter into such issue in view of the terms of the order dated 13.9.2006 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5175/ 2006. I find much substance in the petitioner's submissions. The order refusing to grant 'No Objection Certificate' is contrary to the terms of this Court's order passed in W.P.(C) No. 5175/2006 and is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. The impugned order dated 2.7.2007 is, hereby, quashed.

11. However, in view of the order dated 13.9.2006 of this Court, there is no requirement of 'No Objection Certificate'. The registering authority shall not refuse registration of the transfer of the petitioner's said land on the ground of not producing 'No Objection Certificate.'

This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

Same Court & Year Jharkhand · 2008 Same Parties Chandravati Devi vs State of Jharkhand and anr. Same Subject Property Same Judge Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.

Property