- (1.) L.P.A. No. 515 of 2012: This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 2160 of 2004 dated 9th February, 2012, whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioners, who are respondent Nos. 4 to 10 in the instant appeal, was disposed of with an observation that all the Urban Land Ceiling cases stood abated, because of operation of Section 4 of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, which affected this appellant, who was one of the respondents in the writ petition and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal. L.P.A. No. 495 of 2012:
(2.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 3406 of 2008, who is appellant in this appeal, mainly for getting the land released in his favour, which was declared as excess vacant land by order of the Deputy Commissioner, possession whereof was never taken over by the Government under Sub-section (6) of Section 10 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1996. In this W.P. (C) No. 3406 of 2006, one interlocutory application being I.A. No. 1179 of 2010 was preferred by one of the purchasers of the land, in question viz. Amarendra Kumar Sahay (respondent No. 4 in this L.P.A.) for joining him as party respondent in W.P. (C) No. 3406 of 2008, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 2nd November, 2012 and simultaneously the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 3406 of 2008, preferred by this appellant, was also finally disposed of vide order dated 2nd November, 2012, observing therein that the Urban Land Ceiling proceedings stood abated in pursuance of Section 4 of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. There being few observations against him, the original petitioner, who is appellant in this appeal, has challenged the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 3406 of 2008 with I.A. No. 1179 of 2010 by way of this Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No. 495 of 2012.
(3.) FACTUAL MATRIX: * The appellant in both the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeals is the holder of the land, in question, from the predecessor-in-title Smt. Gauri Rani Devi by registered sale deed dated 6th December, 1974, ad-measuring 1.61 Acres = 6514 Sq. Mts. * Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred as 'U.L.C. Act, 1976', for the sake of brevity) came into force with effect from 17th February, 1976. However, in the erstwhile State of Bihar it was brought into force with effect from 1st April, 1976- as submitted by learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 10. * Thus, the present appellant is a holder of the land, in question, who holds the land, in question, as per Section 2(1) of the U.L.C. Act, 1976, in the capacity of owner of the land and, therefore, necessary forms were filled up, under Section 6 of the U.L.C. Act, 1976 by the holder of the land- appellant in both these Letters Patent Appeals, o n 28th October, 1976. * On 25th May, 1982 a Power of Attorney was executed by the holder of land-appellant in both these appeals, in favour of Sri Awadh Kishore Sahay to look after the land, in question. On the same date, an agreement to sale was also entered into between this appellant and Savitri Devi, wife of Power of Attorney holder Sri Awadh Kishore Sahay (respondent No. 4 in both the Letters Patent Appeals). The Power of Attorney holder Sri Awadh Kishore Sahay sold away the land in favour of his wife, sons and daughters by way of two different registered sale deeds, one dated 17th June, 1982 and another dated 2nd September, 1982. * On 8th March, 1988 an order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, declaring the entire land as excess vacant land under the provisions of U.L.C. Act, 1976. * On 4th June, 1988 notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the U.L.C. Act, 1976 was issued, declaring therein that the excess vacant land is to be acquired by the State Government. * Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, dated 8th March, 1988 the holder of the land, in question viz. the appellant as well as the purchasers of the land, in question, preferred different appeals under Section 33 of the U.L.C. Act, 1976 being Appeal No. 50 of 1988 and Appeal No. 56 of 1988 respectively, before the Commissioner, Chhotanagpur North Division, Hazaribag. * On 9th April, 1990, matter was remanded by the Commissioner, Chhotanagpur North Division, Hazaribag, to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad. * On 31st December, 1995 the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, again passed an order and by this time the wisdom prevailed upon him and, accordingly, instead of declaring entire land as an excess vacant land, one unit was given to the holder of the land (appellant in both the appeals). This one unit, which was to be retained by the holder of the land, is equal to 1500 Sq. Mts. and rest of the land i.e. 5014 Sq. Mts. of land was declared as excess vacant land. * The holder of the land (appellant in both the appeals) being satisfied by this order, never challenged the same by way of Appeal under Section 33 of the U.L.C. Act, 1976. * Nonetheless, the purchasers of the land, in question- respondent Nos. 4 to 10 preferred ULC Appeal No. 25 of 1996 under Section 33 of the U.L.C. Act, 1976. * This appeal being ULC Appeal No. 25 of 1996 (preferred by the purchasers of the land, in question, was dismissed by the Commissioner, Chhotanagpur North Division, Hazaribag vide order dated 18th June, 1996. * Thereafter, the purchasers of the land, in question, preferred writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 2078 of 1996(R) before Ranchi Bench of Hon'ble Patna High Court. * The Hon'ble Court remanded the matter to the authority under U.L.C. Act, 1976. Again the orders were passed and again they were challenged. This continued for two to three times and lastly, a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 2160 of 2004 was preferred by the purchasers of the land, in question, challenging two orders viz. (a) the order, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad dated 31st December, 1995; and (b) the order, passed by the Commissioner, Chhotanagpur North Division, Hazaribag dated 11th February, 2004, because an order was passed by the Commissioner, Chhotanagpur North Division, Hazaribag, dismissing ULC Appeal No. 25 of 1996, preferred by the purchasers of the land, in question, vide order dated 11th February, 2004. * On 9th February, 2007 a letter was written by the Circle Officer bearing Letter No. 158 for removal of the encroachment upon the land, in question. * A suit being Title Suit No. 190 of 1987 was instituted by the holder of the land, in question (appellant in both the appeals) against the purchasers of the land, in question. This Title Suit was dismissed by the Sub Judge 0I, Dhanbad vide order dated 29th November, 2007. * Though the aforesaid Title Suit was dismissed, there were certain observations against the purchasers of the land, in question, and, therefore, the purchasers of the land, in question, as well as the kith and kin of these purchasers, who is Power of Attorney holder, namely, Awadh Kishore Sahay, whose wife, sons and daughters have purchased the land, in question, both preferred Title Appeal No. 3 of 2008 as well as Title Appeal No. 14 of 2008 against the dismissal of Title Suit No. 190 of 1987 by Sub Judge-I, Dhanbad vide order dated 29th November, 2007. * On 2 8th April, 2008 the District Judge, Dhanbad, dismissed both the Title Appeals. * Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter to be referred as 'U.L.C. Repeal Act, 1999' for the sake of brevity) was enacted by the Parliament. Sections 3 and 4 of the U.L.C. Repeal Act, 1999 have very wide ramifications and, therefore, the holder of the land (appellant in both the appeals) preferred W.P. (C) No. 3406 of 2008. * U.L.C. Repeal Act, 1999 was adopted for the State of Jharkhand with effect from 24th January, 2011. * On 17th October, 2011 the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, passed an order to release the excess vacant land in favour of the holder of the land, in question. * As stated above, I.A. No. 1179 of 2010 was preferred by one of the purchasers of the land, in question, namely, Amarendra Kumar Sahay (respondent No. 4 in this L.P.A.) for joining him as party respondent in W.P. (C) No. 3406 of 2008, because he had an interest in the land, in question. This I.A. No. 1179 of 2010 was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 2nd November, 2012 and the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 3406 of 2008, preferred by this appellant, was dismissed vide order dated 2nd November, 2012, mainly on the ground that Urban Land Ceiling proceedings stood abated in view of Section 3 & 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. * Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by both the orders viz. Order passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A. No. 1179 of 2010 in W.P. (C) No. 3406 of 2008 dated 2nd November, 2012 as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 3406 of 2008 dated 2nd November, 2012, the holder of land, in question-writ petitioner preferred L.P.A. No. 495 of 2012. * The writ petition preferred by the purchasers of the land, in question, being W.P. (C) No. 2160 of 2004 was also disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 9th February, 2012, referring Sections 3 & 4 of the U.L.C. Repeal Act, 1999. Aggrieved with the observations, made by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 2160 of 2004, the original respondent No. 6 of W.P. (C) No. 2160 of 2004 has preferred L.P.A. No. 515 of 2012. * Both these appeals have been heard together and with consent of the learned counsel for both the sides, they are being disposed of by this common order.";