2013 (3) TMI 879 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition and locus standi of the petitioners.
2. Legality of the refusal to register the sale deed by the respondents.
3. Applicability of Section 53(6) of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949.
4. Validity of the letters issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar.
5. Requirement for compensation to original raiyats.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition and Locus Standi of the Petitioners:
The court first addressed the locus standi and maintainability of the writ petition. It was determined that the petitioners, having purchased the land and paid consideration, had a legal right to seek relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court noted, "On perusal of the document (Annexure-11) and various clauses mentioned therein... the present petitioners are having locus to file such writ petition seeking writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the petitioners are appears to be aggrieved persons."

2. Legality of the Refusal to Register the Sale Deed by the Respondents:
The court analyzed whether the registering authority had the power to refuse the registration of a validly executed document. It was held that the refusal was not justified. The court referred to the case of Doman Prasad Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand, stating, "Section 20 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act does not put any restriction on the transfer of Basauri land and as such registering authority has erroneously asked for such no objection." The court directed the District Registrar, Deoghar to register the sale deed if no other legal impediments existed.

3. Applicability of Section 53(6) of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949:
The court examined the applicability of Section 53(6) and its impact on the land acquired under Section 25A of Regulation II of 1886. It was noted that Section 53(6) of the 1949 Act, which allows the Deputy Commissioner to restore land to original raiyats if not used for the intended purpose within five years, did not apply retrospectively to land acquired before the Act came into force. The court cited the case of Smt. Sugiya Devi vs. Chando Kapri, stating, "The Amending Act 14 of 1949... is not having retrospective effect and the amended Act shall apply prospectively."

4. Validity of the Letters Issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar:
The court quashed the letters issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, which objected to the transfer of land. It was held that the Deputy Commissioner's actions were not supported by law. The court stated, "Annexure-1 & 14 are required to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, Annexure-1 & 14 are ordered to be quashed and set aside."

5. Requirement for Compensation to Original Raiyats:
The court emphasized the need for fair compensation to the original raiyats whose land was acquired. It directed the petitioners to deposit Rs. 15,00,000 with the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority for distribution among the original raiyats or their heirs. The court stated, "The petitioner shall deposit Rs. 15,00,000/- before the Member-Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority... The said deposited amount be distributed amongst the raiyats or their legal heirs."

Conclusion:
The court disposed of the writ petition with directions to the District Registrar, Deoghar, to register the sale deed, and to the petitioners to compensate the original raiyats. It also directed the State Government to consider amending the law to protect the interests of raiyats in similar cases.