Shri. Chhotan vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Heard Mr. Saurav Arun, counsel appearing for the petitioner.Â

Heard Mr. Shamim Akhtar, counsel appearing for the respondent-State.

Heard Mr. Niraj Kishore, counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 5 and 6.

Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that the serial number of respondent no.7 has been wrongly typed as respondent no. 6 in the memo of parties in

the writ petition. He further submits that he may be permitted to correct the same during the course of the day.

Permission is accorded.Â

Let the necessary correction be done during the course of the day.

This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

“For quashing the order dated 20.12.2006, passed by the Land Reform

Deputy Collector, Ramgarh and order dated 11.05.2007 passed by the Additional Collector Land Ceiling Hazaribagh in L.C. Appeal No. 11/2006 and orders

Dated 13.02.2008 passed by the Court of Member Board of Revenue, Jharkhand in Revision No. 37/2007 for having deliberately ignored/without taking into

consideration the basic facts and infringing on the fundamental rights of the petitioner, without applying the judicious mind over the issue in question. Further, pass

order or orders which may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.â€​

Vide order dated 12.04.2018, this Court directed the respondent- State to produce the records of Pre-emption Case No. 1 of 2006-07 from the Court of Land

Reform Deputy Collector and pursuant to this order, records were produced and submitted to the Court for perusal. The parties herein have also gone through the

records of the lower court.Â

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 20.12.2006 has been passed on the basis of inspection report dated 25.11.2006 and the said

inspection report is available at page no. 15 of the records of Pre-emption Case No. 1 of 2006-07, as produced by the respondent-State. The counsel submits that

the necessary enquiry for the purposes of passing the order under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus

Land) Act, 1961 has not been conducted and in fact, even the boundary of the property has not been mentioned in the inspection report. The inspection report also

does not deal with as to whether the pre-emptor is the co-sharer or the adjoining raiyat of the vended property. He submits that in the impugned order this

inspection report has been referred to and on the basis of this inspection report, certain findings have been recorded which is not born out of inspection report and

accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Land Reform Deputy Collector is perverse and is fit to be set-aside.Â

Counsel for the petitioner further submits that this aspect of the matter has not been taken care of by the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority

and it appears that the appellate and the revisional authority have not taken care to go through the inspection report and the impugned orders have been passed.

He also submits that although he has lost in all the three courts, but on account of the aforesaid perversity of the orders, all the three orders are fit to be set-aside

and fresh order is required to be passed. He submits that the matter should be remanded back to the Land Reform Deputy Collector, Ramgarh for fresh

consideration after conducting proper inspection and after hearing the parties.Â

Counsel for the private respondents, on the other hand, submits that the application for pre-emption was rightly filed and it satisfies all the conditions under the

provisions of Section 16(3) of the aforesaid Act.Â

However, the counsel for the private respondents could not justify the passing of the impugned order on the basis of the so-called inspection report which does

not contain the necessary details which are required to be inspected for the purposes of passing order under Section 16(3) of the aforesaid Act.Â

Counsel for the State by referring to the inspection report could not dispute the fact that neither the boundary of the property has been mentioned in the

inspection report nor any thing has been mentioned as to whether the pre-emptor is a                    co-sharer of the vended

property or the adjoining raiyat of the vended property although the impugned order was passed by Land Reform Deputy Collector inter alia on the basis of the

inspection report and the order of Land Reform Deputy Collector was confirmed by the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority.Â

After hearing the parties and considering the materials on record including the records of the case being Pre-emption Case No.1 of 2006-07 which has been

produced before this Court, this

Court is inclined to set-aside the impugned order dated 20.12.2006 passed by the Land Reform Deputy Collector, Ramgarh, order dated 11.05.2007 passed by the

Additional Collector Land Ceiling Hazaribagh in L.C. Appeal No. 11/2006 and order dated 13.02.2008 passed by the Court of Member Board of Revenue,

Jharkhand in Revision No. 37/2007 solely on account of the reason that the first impugned order which was passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector was

inter-alia on the basis of the inspection report is itself perverse. The contents of the inspection report dated 25.11.2006 are quoted herein below:

“Hkwfe lq/kkj milekgRrkZ jkex   LFky tk¡p esesk

 Hkw&gncUnh okn l[a;k& 01@06&07

HkSjks lko oxSjg cuke~ NksVu lko oxSjg

xzke&ck# ?kqVw  vapy dk uke&ek.Mw LFky fujh{k.k dh frfFk&25@11@06

izLrkfor Hkwfe dk fooj.k& ck# ?kqVw] [kkrk ua0&7] IykV ua0&504] jdok&0-07 ,dM+

xzke           [kkrk ua0               IykSV ua0     jdck               Â

pkSgn~nh

ck# ?kqVw          7                   504             0-07        Â

       m0&

              n0&         Â

iq0&Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â

i0&

g0&HkSjks lko

25&11&2006Â Â Â Â Â

                                                      g0&NksVu lko

izFke i{k dk gLrk{kj                                                    Â

f}rh; i{k dk gLrk{kj

Â

 mifLFkr xzkeh.kks adk gLrk{kj

1-Â Â Â Â Â Â g0&vLi""V

2-Â Â Â Â Â Â g0&thoyky lko

3-Â Â Â Â Â Â g0&iIiq dqekj xqIrk

4-      g0&v’kksd dqekj

5-Â

     Â

g0&vLi""VÂ

     Â

25@11@06

     Â

Hkwfe lq/kkj

milekgRrkZ

jkexgtkjhckxA â€​

Â

From the perusal of the inspection report as quoted above, it appears that apart from giving the details of the vended property and containing the signatures of

a few villagers and so-called signatures of the parties, the inspection report does not contain any noting upon inspection at all. It neither contains the boundary of

the property does it mention as to whether the pre-emptor is the co-sharer or the adjoining raiyat of the vended property.

This Court is of the considered view that no order could have been passed on the basis of such perfunctory inspection report and in fact, the contents of the

inspection report which is mentioned in the impugned order dated 20.12.2006, is not mentioned in the inspection report at all. In this view of the matter, the

impugned order dated 20.12.2006 passed by Land Reform Deputy Collector is perverse and is fit to be set-aside. This aspect of the matter has neither been

considered by the appellate authority nor the revisional authority and from the perusal of the impugned orders passed by the appellate authority as well as the

revisional authority, it appears that they have not taken care to go through the inspection report                dated 25.11.2006.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, all the aforesaid impugned orders are hereby set-aside and the matter is remitted back to the Land

Reform Deputy Collector, Ramgarh for passing fresh order after conducting fresh inspection in connection with the vended property with particular reference to

the boundary and status of the preemptor. The inspection is to be conducted and inspection report is to be prepared in presence of the parties and a copy of the

same should also be handed over to the parties. The Land Reform Deputy Collector, Ramgarh is directed to pass a fresh order on the application for pre-emption

after hearing the parties within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The records of Pre-emption Case No. 1 of 2006-07 which had been called for from the Court of Land Reform Deputy Collector, Ramgarh is hereby being

returned to the counsel for the State.

The writ petition is hereby disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.Â

                                                      Â

          Â