P.P.Bhatt, J. - (1.) PETITIONERS , by way of filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, commanding upon the respondents particularly respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to register the sale deed executed by the vendor of the petitioners in favour of the petitioners with respect to 12.73 acres of land by sale deed dated 13.11.2007, as according to the petitioners, petitioners have got absolute right, title and the land being basauri land is being transferable under the provision of 25A(ii) of Regulation 1886. It is further prayed for issuance of an appropriate direction for quashing the letter bearing No. 4227 dated 15.9.2004 (Annexure -1) and letter No. 174 dated 14.2.2009 (Annexure -14), as according to the petitioners, the same are illegal, without jurisdiction and against the provisions of Registration Act. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents -State Government and perused the materials placed on record.
(2.) THE learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the land of 12.73 acres were acquired under regulation 25A of the Santhal Pargana Rent Regulation, 1886 (Regulation 11 of 1886) for Dabur India Ltd. It is submitted that the then Zamindar through Manager Rohini Wards Estate, Deoghar applied for acquisition of land for erection of "manufacturing unit and construction of dwelling houses purposes" under Section 25A of the Santhal Pargana Rent Regulation Act, 1886 for an area of 12.73 acres for which a proceeding was initiated in the Court of S.D.O. in L.A. Case No. 3 of 1943 -44. Upon the payment of compensation to the Raiyats permission was accorded to acquire the land for Mr. P.C. Burman of Dabur India Ltd. for manufacturing and construction of dwelling houses purposes. The Company Dabur India Ltd. further acquired 2.03 acres of land through the sale deed which is Basauri land over which there is no dispute. Further 0.63 acres of railway class -B Land was also settled by S.D.O. Deoghar for Dabur India Ltd. for the above purpose. Thus total of 1539 acres of land was given to the Dabur India Ltd. and its name was also registered in Register II. Thereafter the Company set up its plant/factory and constructed several houses/residential buildings for its employees and officers. The purpose for which land was acquired continued for several decades. But since last few years the factory had to be closed down for several reasons and the land and structure were lying idle and unutilized, thereafter the said Company decided to sell and transfer the land as it was Basauri. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar issued a confidential letter bearing Memo No. 4227 dated 355.2004 whereby the concerned local officer/authorities including District Sub -Registrar were intimated that attempt is being made by the Company to transfer its valuable land and it is necessary to make an inquiry and take appropriate decision and therefore, till further order the transfer of lands of the Company shall remain stayed. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar objected to the sale/transfer of land. It is submitted that the Sub Divisional Officer, Deoghar vide his enquiry report dated 17.12.2004 discussed in detail the entire history of the land and came to the conclusion that the land belongs to the Company and accordingly the said Company was entitled to transfer the said lands. In support of this submission the learned senior counsel for the petitioners has referred photocopy of the report dated 17.12.2004 which has been annexed as Annexure -2 to the writ petition. It is submitted that District Land Acquisition Officer, Deoghar also submitted a similar report by giving conclusions that there is no legal hurdle in transfer of the land and in support thereof, the teamed senior counsel for the petitioners has referred to photocopy of the report dated 31.12.2004 which has been annexed as Annexure -3 to the writ petition. It is submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar by letter No. 326 dated 17.4.2006 sought clarification from the Deputy Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Govt. of Jharkhand in the matter. Thereafter the matter was scrutinized by the Department and after the concurrence of the then Minister of Revenue, the Revenue Department issued Letter No. 278 dated 27.4.2006 to the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar stating that the Company was entitled to transfer the land of 15.39 acres. It is further submitted that inspite of the aforesaid letter the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar did not give permission to sell the land and again sent the file back on 16.8.2006 to the Minister, Revenue, Thereafter certain more documents were called for by the Department from the D.C. Deoghar which was given by the D.C. Deoghar vide letter dated 26.7.2008 in which an objection was raised on the basis of the earlier letter of the department that the land was acquired for the specific purpose and therefore the land could not be used for any other purpose and therefore the transfer of land for any other purpose was not legal and not in accordance with Section 44A of the I.A. Act, 1894 and/or Section 53(6) of the SPT Act. It is further submitted that thereafter Dabur India Ltd. again gave representation on 16.10.2006 in which enquiry report of S.D.O. Deoghar and L.A.O., Deoghar conducted in 2004 was referred in which it was held that there was no legal impediment in the transfer of land. Thereafter again after the approval of the Principal Secretary, Land Revenue Department. Departmental Letter No. 52 (Rev) dated 27.1.2009 was written to the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar by reiterating and confirming the letter No. 278 dated 27.4.2006 in which specific order has been passed for compliance of the above order. In this context the learned senior counsel for the petitioners referred to photocopy of letter dated 27.1.2009 which has been annexed as Annexure -15 to the writ petition. It is also pointed out that thereafter the Deputy Commissioner ignoring the clear cut order passed by the Secretary, Land Reforms Deptt. again vide letter No. 174 dated 14.2.2009 by giving reference to the letter dated 24.8.2004 again sent the file to the Revenue Department requesting for a specific order/direction for the reasons best known to him and in support thereof photocopy of letter dated 27.1.2009 annexed as Annexure -14 to the writ petition has been referred. It is further submitted that in the meantime the Company executed a sale deed on 13.11.2007 in favour of the petitioners and the deed of sale was presented for registration on 3.11.2008. The District Sub Register, Deoghar made an endorsement on 24.11.2008 and returned the deed to the petitioners on 25.11.2008. In this context, photocopy of sale deed dated 13.11.2007 has been annexed as Annexure -11 to the writ petition. It is further submitted that the petitioners made a representation the Dy. Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Govt. of Jharkhand who issued letter No. 52 dated 27.1.2009 re -affirming the earlier letter of the department dated 27.4.2006. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has referred to and relied upon the judgment in the case of Doman Prasad Yadav versus The State of Jharkhand and others, reported in 2008 (1) JLJR 506. In addition to that he has also referred to and relied upon the judgment given in the case of Dhena Hansda and others versus State of Jharkhand and others, reported in : 2003 (3) JCR 230 (Jhr.), the decision rendered in LPA No. 321 of 2012 by the Division Bench of this Court as well other orders passed by this Court in WPC No. 2584 of 2008, WPC No. 5643 of 2008, WPC No. 4458 of 2011, WPC No. 822 of 2011 and Cont. Case (Civil) No. 265 of 2012 in support of his submissions.
(3.) AS against that, learned counsel for the respondents -State Government while referring the counter -affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 4 & 5 tried to justify the view expressed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure - 5 & 14 and submitted that same analogy as contained in the provisions of Land Acquisition Act shall apply to the acquisition made under the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act. It is further submitted that so far as question of registration of land is concerned, Section 20 sub -section (3) fit (4) of Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary) Act 1949 provides that no transfer in contravention of sub -section (1) & (2) of Section 20 of the Act shall not be registered or in any way recognized nor any Court or Officer shall pass any order or decree in respect thereto. It is submitted that registration cannot be done in contravention of Section 20 of sub -section (1) and (2), in view of the provisions contained in Section (3) and (4) of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary) Act of 1949. It is submitted that letter No. 278, dated 27 -4 -06 of the Department of Revenue fit Land Reforms does not provide any clear cut direction to the Deputy Commissioner. In fact the contents of the letter is contradictory to the letter issued by the Commissioner -cum -Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department, bearing letter No. 569/Sa. Ko. dated 24/8/2004 and therefore Deputy Commissioner vide letter No. 634/Vidhi, dated 23/6/2006 has requested for dear -cut direction from the Department. It is also submitted that in continuation of the correspondence with the State Government the Deputy Commissioner sent compliance report vide letter No. 918/Ra dated 27/8/2009 to the Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department But thereafter no direction has been received from the Department. It is submitted that matter is still under consideration before the Department. It is further submitted that the land in question acquired for specific purpose and therefore said land cannot be used for any other purpose and therefore, the transfer of land for any other purpose is not legal as the same is in contravention of Section 44A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Section 53(6) of the SPT Act.;