- (1.) The instant intra-court appeal is under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 10.01.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4963 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the order dated 24.07.2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma in Miscellaneous Case No. 11 of 2001 has been quashed with a direction upon the respondent State to de-notify the land of the petitioner from acquisition and further, the petitioner may file fresh application for correction of Jamabandi and issuance of rent receipt before the Circle Officer, Koderma after issuance of the order of de-notification which shall be dealt with by the Respondent No.6 in accordance with law.
(2.) Before entering into the merit of the issue, it is relevant to enumerate certain factual aspect which is necessary to come to the rightful conclusion. The case of the writ petitioner in the writ petition was that by virtue of registered sale deed No. 916 dated 31.01.1979, he purchased the landed property pertaining to Khata No. 40, Plot No. 1250, Area 2.52 acres, Khata No. 4, Plot No. 1251, Area 1.90 acres, Khata No. 25, Plot No. 1249, Area 2.03 acres and Khata No. 57, Plot No. 1252, Area 1.00 acres in Mouza Moriyawan from the recorded raiyats namely Prayag Modi, Raghav Modi and Ram Krishna Modi. According to the writ petitioner, in the record of rights, Khata No. 25 stands in the name of Ghanshyam Pandey and others whereas Khata No.40 stands in the name of Naro Gope and others while Khata No. 4 stands in the name of Annachch Gope and others whereas Khata No.57 stands recorded in the name of Bhikho Gope and others. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that the legal heirs of Naro Gope and others namely Jagi Gope sold 2.52 acres of land in Khata No.40, Plot No. 1250 by registered sale deed No. 12683 dated 21.07.1976 to Prayag Modi, Raghav Modi and Ram Krishna Modi. Similarly, vendors purchased the land of Khata No.4, Plot No. 1251, area 1.90 acres from Bhikhan Gope, legal heirs of Annachch Gope and others by virtue of registered sale deed No. 12684 dated 21.07.1976. Similarly, legal heirs of Ghanshyam Pandey and others namely Anuj Pandey sold the land of Khata No. 25, Plot No. 1249, area 2.03 acres out of 2.74 acres by registered sale deed No. 12685 dated 21.07.1976 to vendors and legal heirs of Bhikhan Gope and others namely Babun Gope sold the land of Khata No. 57, Plot No. 1252, area 1.00 acre by registered sale deed No. 12686 dated 21.07.1976 in favour of vendors of the petitioner from whom the petitioner has purchased 7.45 acres in four khatas and four plots mentioned above and is in continuous possession over the land since the date of purchase. The petitioner has applied for mutation before the Circle Officer, Koderma, in the year 1989 but the same was rejected on the ground that the land in question has been declared as surplus land of one M/s. C.M.I. Limited, Domchanch. The petitioner, thereafter, had filed one release case being Release Case No. 11 of 2001 before the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma narrating the entire facts but was rejected on the ground that the lands were declared as surplus land of M/s C.M.I. Limited, Domchanch. The vendors of the petitioner had preferred writ petition for de-notification being C.W.J.C. No. 3026 of 1998 (R) which was allowed vide order dated 01.05.2009 directing to de-notify the lands in question. According to the writ petitioner, her case is squarely covered by the decision of the High Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3026 of 1998 (R) but without appreciating factual aspects, the application has been rejected. Further case of the writ petitioner is that in similar facts and circumstances aforesaid writ petition was allowed and as such, the present writ petition is also fit to be allowed, since facts herein are also exactly similar. The learned Single Judge, by putting reliance upon the order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3026 of 1998 (R), has been pleased to quash the order dated 24.07.2014 passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 11 of 2001 with a direction to de-notify the land of the petitioner from the acquisition which is the subject matter of the present appeal.
(3.) The respondent State of Jharkhand, assailing the aforesaid order, has taken the ground of non-appreciation of the factual aspect as also the plea of continuous possession of the State and the fact leading to the case of C.W.J.C. No. 3026 of 1998 (R) is different to the fact of the present case.;