Jharkhand High Court: In the present case, an appeal was filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, challenging order dated 7-5-2025 whereby the title of the petitioner could not be decided since there was no document produced to substantiate the same. The Division Bench of Sujit Narayan Prasad* and Arun Kumar Rai, JJ., dismissed the appeal holding that the intra-court appeal in furtherance of the proceeding of the writ court was not available to take new ground by making a totally new case. The Court stated that if a document was placed before the writ court, the matter would have been different and in those circumstances, the writ court would have considered the said document.
Background
In the present case, the land in question was settled by the ex-landlord to the original petitioner by virtue of Hukumnama. After vesting the land, the then Government of Bihar recognised the original petitioner as a tenant. After creation of the State of Jharkhand, the original petitioner paid rent for the land settled to him by the ex-landlord in lieu of grant of rent receipt. The Additional Collector, Latehar based on the recommendation of the Circle Officer, Balumath, certified Raiyati status of the land.
The original petitioner had given consent to work on his land, but no crop compensation was given, and thus, he demanded compensation and employment. The Circle Officer, Balumath informed him that the land was in Gaimajarua Khata (held by the government). The Government of India, Ministry of Coal issued notification under Section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957 for acquisition of 73.55 hectares of land for coal mining.
The grand children of the original petitioner made representation to the Project Manager, OCP Tetaria Kharh that they did not receive any compensation in lieu of the land in question, hence, they might be given employment as per their educational qualification. The benefits of rehabilitation and resettlement (R & R), including employment in lieu of the said land, were denied on the ground that in Hal Khatiyan, the land concerned had been recorded as Gairmajarua Malik.
It was contended that the original petitioner by remaining in possession for a long time, accrued Raiyati status. The petition was dismissed as no document of ownership of the land could be produced by the original petitioner except a Raiyati certificate. Thus, the present appeal was filed.
Analysis and Decision
The Court after considering the settled law that rent receipts were fiscal documents and did not confer title to land; they serve as proof of payment but did not establish ownership or possession rights over the property. The Court stated that mere issuance of rent receipts would not create title to the land or prove possession.
The Court took into account that the petitioners’ sole ground was based upon the amount of compensation and the employment to be provided under the R & R Policy based on possession of the land concerned for the last 70 years. However, the issue of possession was disputed by the respondent as mining operation was being carried out.
The Court held that the intra-court appeal was not available to take a new ground by making of totally a new case as it was settled that if there was no pleading having been taken before the writ court, then it was not available for the party concerned to come out totally with the new case for the purpose of scrutinising the order passed by the Single Judge on the basis of the document which was never been placed before the Single Judge for its consideration.
The Court stated that if a document would have been there before the writ court, the matter would have been different and in those circumstances, the writ court would have considered the said document. However, long possession was never the ground before the Single Judge, rather, the prayer was to make payment of compensation presenting themselves to be the titleholder of the land which had been acquired and handed over in favour of the respondent.
The Court after considering the facts stated that if in such circumstances, the Single Judge had come out with the finding by not adjudicating the issue in exercise of the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground of availability of disputed question of fact with an observation to get the issue adjudicated by filing a suit before the competent court of civil jurisdiction, then it could not be said to suffer from an error.
Thus, the Court dismissed the appeal.
[Saraswati Devi v. State of Jharkhand, 2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 2972, decided on 21-7-2025]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellants: Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Akash Kumar Lal, Advocate, Ram Prakash Singh, Advocate, Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Amit Kumar Das, Advocate, Swati Shalini, Advocate, Shray Mishra, Advocate.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
