BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides.

(2.) THE learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that when a sale was by an occupancy raiyat as defined in the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act and the sale is for a manufacturing or minining purpose, Section 49 of the Act is attracted. It was immaterial whether the transferor belonged to the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or Backward community. Every transfer had to have the clearance of the Deputy Commissioner in terms of Section 49 of the Act. Counsel submitted that the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not lay down the correct law and requires reconsideration.

(3.) BUT we find considerable force in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the condition imposed by the Deputy Commissioner that the purchaser must provide employment to the transferor or a member of his family, is without any legal backing. The said direction is beyond the purview of the permission contemplated under Section 49 of the Act. We are respectively in agreement with the ratio of the decision in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. State of Bihar, 1999 (3) PLJR 15 in that regard. Therein, our learned brother has noticed the decision of the Supreme Court in Butu Prasad Kumhar and Ors. v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors. (1995) Supp (2) SCC 225. We see no reason to disagree with the view adopted by our learned brother in that decision. Therefore, to the extent the Deputy Commissioner has directed that the purchaser should provide employment to the vendor or a member of the family, the same is found to be illegal and without jurisdiction. To that extent the communication issued by the Deputy Commissioner requires to be interfered with: