Deepak Roshan, J
1. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner to quash the list of prohibited land (Annexure-12) issued by the Revenue
Department, which prohibits the registration of transfer of land and to direct the respondents not to refuse the registration of the petitioner’s land
transfer based on the unilaterally prepared prohibited list.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the land of petitioner is situated at Mauza Maheshpur, Mouza No.250, Thana Maheshpur, Khata No. 162, Dag
(Plot) No. 475 area measuring 18 Katha 03 Dhurs in District Pakur. The land is settled under the name of Petitioner’s father through unregistered
Bandobasti Parwana in 1945 and has also been paying rent and the latest rent receipt were issued in favour of petitioner till 31.07.2023. There have
been objections regarding possession of land by petitioner however none fructified thereby cementing the claim of petitioner. Subsequently, without
rhyme and reason and without issuing notice; the land of the petitioner was included in the Prohibited List prepared by the Government of Jharkhand
which makes the land non-transferable in favour of others as such the petitioner is not able to transfer the land for his urgent money requirements.
Hence, this writ application.
3. The issue in the present writ application is covered by the judgment dated 13th December, 2024 passed in W.P.(C) No. 847 of 2023 (Brinda Devi
Agarwal Vs. State of Jharkhand). For brevity, relevant paragraph is quoted herein below:-
“9. Before delving deep into the matter, it would be appropriate to examine the important issues involved in the instant writ petition:
(I) Whether the entry of the land in the prohibited list of NGDRS has civil consequences?
(II) Whether the Respondent-State can put the land in the prohibited list under NGDRS without following due procedure of law and the principles of natural
justice?
10. Having gone through the records of the case and after hearing the rival contention of the parties across the bar, it is an admitted fact that the land forming
subject matter of the instant case was settled in the favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioner, namely Hari Prasad Agarwal in the year 1948 through a
registered patta bearing number 1167 of 1948. The land was thereafter sold one to another individual namely Lalita Bhanote vide a registered sale deed dated
31st of March 1989. The Petitioner purchased the land in the year 2007 vide a registered sale deed dated 30th of November 2007. After the Petitioner purchased
the land, she filed an application for mutation which was allowed vide order dated 24th of December 2007 and revenue rent receipts was issued in the favour of
the Petitioner.
11. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 11th of November 2022 will show that the land was marked as ‘suspicious’, and it was only on the basis of
the same that the land forming subject matter of the instant writ petition was put in the prohibited list. The Respondent-State has not countered the fact that
notices were not issued to the Petitioner prior to the jamabandi of the Petitioner being marked as ‘suspicious’ or before the land was entered in the
prohibited list of NGDRS.
12. It is trite law that right to property and its enjoyment is not only a constitutional right but also a human right. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Lachhman Dass vs. Jagat Ram and Ors. reported in 2007 10 SCC 448 has held that the right to property is a constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300A
of the Constitution of India and if there is any entity claiming a superior right, then such right has to be enforced in accordance with the procedure prescribed
under law. The relevant portion of the judgement is as under:-
“16…His right, therefore, to own and possess the suit land could not have been taken away without giving him an opportunity of hearing in a matter of this
nature. To hold property is a constitutional right in terms of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. It is also a human right. Right to hold property, therefore,
cannot be taken away except in accordance with the provisions o a statute. If a superior right to hold a property is claimed, the procedures therefore must be
complied with.â€
13. ‘Civil consequence’ has been defined by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nirma Industries Ltd. and Ors. vs. Securities and Exchange Board of
India reported in (2013) 8 SCC 20. The relevant portion of the judgement is reproduced as under: -
“28….Here again, this Court has reiterated that even an administrative order, which involved civil consequences, must be consistent with the rules of natural
justice. The expression ""civil consequences"" encompasses infraction of not merely property or personal rights but of civil liberties, material deprivations and non-
pecuniary damages. In other words, anything which affects the rights of the citizen in ordinary civil life.â€
14. In the given facts of the case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court there is no doubt that inclusion of the land into the ‘Prohibited List’
affects the right of enjoyment of the property of an individual which includes right of transfer. The said person can be deprived of various rights such as right to
lease the property, right to develop the property or as in the case at hand, the right to alienate/sell the property. As such, this Court has no hesitation in holding
that the inclusion of any land in the prohibited list has ‘civil consequences.’ The first issue stands answered accordingly.
15. Coming onto the second issue, it is trite law that any action, including administrative law, which has civil consequences must adhere to the principles of
natural justice and non-adherence to the same would be fatal to such action. In the case at hand, the State has not countered the fact that the no notice(s) were
issued to the Petitioner prior to the land being included in the prohibited list of NDGRS. This Court fails to understand that despite having ample opportunity to
file a reply, the State Respondent did not bring any procedure on record for the inclusion or exclusion of any property in the prohibited list of NGDRS. Having
already observed that inclusion of a property in the prohibited list has civil consequences and as such a Petitioner cannot be deprived of the same without
following the due process of law. The action of the Respondent State fails on this ground as well.
16. It is trite law that ‘no person can be judge in his own cause’. The fact that neither there is any order by the competent court nor there is any proceeding
pending against the Petitioner with respect to cancellation of jamabandi. The contention of the Respondent that the land is of the nature ‘Gair Abad’ and
jamabandi appears to be suspicious cannot be ground to cancel the long standing jamabandi as has been held in the case of Pashupati Narayan Singh v. State of
Jharkhand and Anr reported in 2008 SCC OnLine Jhar 946, the relevant portion of which is as under:-
“8. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that while; refusing to grant ‘No Objection Certificate’ to the petitioner, the
learned Additional Collector, Dhanbad has delved into the question of right and ownership of the petitioner over the land, in question, which is beyond his
jurisdiction. The name of the petitioner and predecessor-in-interest had been mutated long ago and they have been paying rent to the State, the State-respondent
has already accepted the petitioner as raiyat of the said land. However, in the impugned order learned Additional Collector has observed that the land is a Gair
Abad of Ex-landlord and that the petitioner has got no right over the same and he has no legal basis. The action of the Additional Collector recommending
annulment of the settlement of the said land is in violation of the provisions of Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, that too without holding any enquiry
required under law, is also perverse, arbitrary and illegal. The said order, thus, cannot stand. I find much substance in the contentions of learned counsel for the
petitioner.â€
17. It is also no more res integra that long standing jamabandi cannot be looked into by the revenue court and it is only the civil court of competent jurisdiction
which can interfere with such right on an individual.
18. The State’s submission that it is contemplating of initiation of proceedings under 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 therefore the Petitioner’s
property was placed in prohibited list of NGDRS. This submission of the State is devoid of merit because it will be illegal and arbitrary on part of the State to take
decision based on anticipation. The proceedings under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 does not provide any limitation prescribed but in the
judgment of Antardhari Sao vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors., reported in 2024 SCC OnLineJhar 513, the co-ordinate bench of this Court has held that even if
there is no prescribed period of limitation, the authorities are under obligation to initiate proceeding within a reasonable period of time. The relevant portion of
the judgment is reproduced as under for ready reference: -
“20. Section 4(h) of the Act does not provide for any period of limitation. When there is no period of limitation prescribed in the statute to initiate the
proceeding, it does not mean that this proceeding can be initiated at any time as per the wish of the authority and person, who is initiating the proceeding. In
absence of any prescribed period for limitation, the proceeding should be initiated within a reasonable time frame.â€â€
4. Even otherwise, in view of the fact that the respondent authorities are not vested in any law to exercise any jurisdiction affecting the right, title and
interest of any individual. It is only the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, who will decide such issue. Placing any property in prohibited list is a
colourable exercise of power and the State authorities cannot be the judge of its own cause.
5. Therefore, for the reasons alike, the instant writ application stands allowed and the concerned respondent is directed to allow registration of land in
question without giving effect to prohibited list (Annexure-12) issued by Revenue Department prohibiting the transfer of land.
6. Pending I.A.s, if any, also stand closed.
