1. The present interlocutory application has been filed for amendment in the cause title of the instant appeal to the extent that the performa respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 may be treated as appellant Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5.

2. In view of the reasons assigned in the aforesaid interlocutory application, I.A. No. 6061 of 2020 stands allowed and disposed of.

3. Office is directed to carry out the exercise.

I.A. No. 958 of 2021:

4. The present interlocutory application has been filed for condonation of delay of 731 days in filing the instant appeal.

5. In view of the reasons assigned in the interlocutory application, the delay of 731 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned.

6. Accordingly, I.A. No. 958 of 2021 stands allowed.

L.P.A. No. 602 of 2019:

7. The instant intra-court appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 12.12.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1705 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the order impugned in the writ petition dated 26.11.2011 has been quashed and set aside.

8. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition, which are required to be enumerated, read as hereunder:

One M/s. Ranchi Zamindari Limited owned and possessed agricultural land as well as the land which were used purely for non-agricultural purposes. Out of the said land, various transfers were made to different persons, companies' etc. till the year 1962 and the names of the transferees were duly mutated in the revenue records and the transferees have been paying rent of their respective land to the State Government. The name of M/s. Ranchi Zamindari Ltd. was subsequently changed to M/s. Ranchi Enterprises and Properties Ltd. (the writ petitioner). In the year 1973, a proceeding was initiated at the behest of the then Additional Collector, Lohardaga which was registered as Land Ceiling Case No. 240 of 1973-74 and vide notification no. 139/Ceiling dated 19.11.1976 published in the official gazette on 01.12.1976, altogether 1382 acres of land (approximately) situated at different villages was declared surplus.
One M/s. Chotanagpur General Trading Company Ltd. Ranchi challenged the said notification with respect to 735.94 acres of the aforesaid land belonging to the said company by filing a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 84 of 1977(R). The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 10.08.1979 by quashing the impugned notification to the extent of the subject matter of the writ petition, however, with a liberty to the revenue authority to issue notice to M/s. Chotanagpur General Trading Company Ltd. treating it as a land holder and then to proceed in accordance with law for the purpose of fixation of its surplus land, if any. Thereafter, a fresh proceeding was initiated vide Land Ceiling Case No. 01/1981-82. In the meanwhile, the order passed by the Board of Revenue to exercise option under Section 9 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1961, which having not being implemented, an another writ petition was filed being C.W.J.C. No. 2157 of 1989(R), wherein, vide order dated 14.12.1989, the writ petitioner was directed to approach the Board of Revenue for initiation of contempt proceeding for non-implementation of the order dated 25.04.1979. Thereafter, the writ petitioner filed a fresh petition on 20.12.1989 exercising option as provided under Section 9 of the Act, 1961 and pursuant thereto, the then Additional Collector, Lohardaga allowed the writ petitioner to exercise its option under Section 9 of the Act, 1961. The writ petitioner had also filed a list of land which it wanted to retain. The State Government having received the option of the writ petitioner, vide memo no. 772 dated 01.09.1995 informed it that out of the option exercised by it, 8.27 acres of land had already been acquired by various land holders and residential houses have been constructed, thus requested the writ petitioner to delete the same from the list of land for which the writ petitioner had exercised the option. The writ petitioner, after having received the letter of the State Government, deleted the land vide petition dated 28.09.1995 which was disputed and the said fact was so informed to the State Government by giving another option for allocation of land, the said matter is still pending.

The writ petitioner, in the meantime, on 16.02.2012, was served with a memo bearing no. 957 dated 28.11.2011 issued by the respondent no. 4 annexing the copies of the notification dated 26.11.2011 and 29.11.2011 passed by the respondent no. 4, whereby and whereunder the transfers of land made by the writ petitioner were held invalid and the Circle Officer, Kudu/Kisko and Bhandra were directed to cancel the jamabandi and enter the same in Register-II.

The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the aforesaid direction of the State authority, approached to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1705 of 2012 questioning the notification dated 26.11.2011 as also the order dated 29.11.2011 which according to the writ petitioner is absolutely unjustified decision having been issued without any application of mind inasmuch as on the one hand, the writ petitioner has been given benefit to exercise option under Section 9 of the Act, 1961 under Land Ceiling Case No. 240/1973-74, on the other hand, the case of the writ petitioner is that even the land which had been opted under Section 9 of the Act, 1961 has been arbitrarily clubbed with Land Ceiling Case No. 01/1981-82 which was initiated with regard to verification and determination of surplus land, if any, in connection with 735.94 acres of land belonging to M/s. Chhotanagpur General Trading Company.

Further ground has been taken that the notification dated 01.12.1976 was issued under Section 15 of the Act, 1961 by virtue of which 1382.175 acres of land specified therein having been declared surplus, were notified for acquisition and vested to the State. The writ petitioner did not challenge the said notification except to the extent of exercising option under Section 9 of the Act, 1961 as a land holder to retain smaller part of the land. It is also submitted that the lands situated within Ranchi Municipal Corporation and urban agglomeration to the extent of 80 acres have been drawn under the Act, 1961 which has been promulgated for the purpose of fixing the ceiling area of agricultural land, and therefore, drawing the proceeding under the Act, 1961 is without jurisdiction and contrary to law. According to the writ petitioner, for declaring the ceiling of urban land, another enactment namely, the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1976") has been promulgated and the scope of the Act, 1976 is with respect to urban land excluding the agricultural land. It is the further ground of the writ petitioner that vide notification dated 08.03.1981 issued by the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, it has been explained that the urban land/municipality land shall be outside the purview of the Act, 1961. Further ground has been taken that the notification dated 02.03.2012 issued by the Department of Urban Development, Government of Jharkhand, the land of Mouza- Bariatu, Gadi, Tiril, Lalpur, Chadri and Ranchi have been declared as urban land. The land in question are situated well within the periphery of Ranchi city and are well within the local limits of Ranchi Municipal Corporation since inception which are being used for residential as well as commercial purposes.

9. On the other hand, the plea of the State before the writ court was that the Act, 1961 was enacted with a motto to acquire surplus land to be further allotted to the landless persons or to be used for the other public purposes, therefore, any transfer made by the land holder even after 22.10.1959 cannot be ignored and the proceeding can be initiated as per the provisions of the Act, 1961 to annul the transfer. The writ petitioner being the successor of M/s. Ranchi Zamindari Ltd. and the land held by the writ petitioner was transferred to it in the year 1962 clearly indicates that the land was transferred by M/s. Ranchi Zamindari Ltd. to the writ petitioner in order to frustrate the purposes of the Act, 1961. It was further submitted that since initiation of Land Ceiling Case No. 01/1981-82 and issuance of notice in pursuance thereto, the present land ceiling matter has been pending for consideration and during the pendency of the writ petition before the respondent no. 4, the land in question were transferred to one or the other person which could not have been done and it was also incumbent upon the buyers to verify that the land being purchased by them are not in dispute and are free from all encumbrances. The said lands have thus been transferred without obtaining the prior permission of the competent authority, therefore, the respondent no. 5 - the Sub-Divisional Officer, Lohardaga, vide his letter no. 449/Ra dated 06.09.2008 informed the respondent no. 3 - the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga that the land under Khata Nos. 1, 4 and 121 have been sold on the basis of forged documents. Further ground was taken that earlier, Suit No. 240 of 1973-74 was instituted and the respondent no. 4 issued a show cause notice dated 10.08.1976 to M/s. Ranchi Enterprises and Properties Ltd., Ranchi (the writ petitioner) as to why the land were sold after 22.10.1959 without prior permission of the Collector in violation of the provisions of the Act, 1961. The writ petitioner could not clarify the position by showing cause as to why the lands were sold after the aforesaid date without obtaining prior permission of the competent authority, and therefore, the said transfer was ordered to be cancelled with a direction to remove the writ petitioner's name from Register II i.e., the Record of Right.

The learned Single Judge after appreciating the factual aspect as also the argument advanced on behalf of the respective parties, quashed the impugned order after coming to the conclusive finding of exceeding the jurisdiction in including the urban land of the writ petitioner mainly used for residential and commercial purpose, in a proceeding initiated under the Act, 1961 as also on the ground that the land which was subject matter of Land Ceiling Case No. 240 of 1973-74, even though has attained finality, but clubbed with the and Land Ceiling Case No. 01 of 1981-82. The aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge is the subject matter of the instant intra-court appeal.

10. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned Additional Advocate General-III submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that any transfer made by the land holder even after 22.10.1959 cannot be ignored and the proceeding can be initiated as per the provision of the Act, 1961 to annul the transfer which is in order to attain the object and aim of the Act, 1961.

It has further been submitted that the writ petitioner being successor of M/s. Ranchi Zamindari Ltd. and the land held by the writ petitioner was transferred to it in the year 1962 indicates that the land was transferred by M/s. Ranchi Zamindari Ltd. to the writ petitioner which is to frustrate the purpose of the Act, 1961. But this aspect of the matter has not properly been appreciated by the learned Single Judge.

Further, the proceeding pertaining to Land Ceiling Case No. 01/1981-82 in which the notice was issued was pending but even in course of its pendency, the land in question was transferred to one or the other persons which could not have been done without seeking permission of the competent authority but this aspect of the matter has also not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge.

The show cause notice has been issued to the writ petitioner that under what capacity the land has been transferred but no reply has been furnished. In the backdrop of the aforesaid ground, submission has been made that due to non-consideration of these factual aspect the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in the eye of law.

11. Per contra, Mr. Kumar Harsh, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that there is no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge since the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the fact about the order passed in Land Ceiling Case No. 240 of 1973-74 wherein altogether 1382 acres of land (approximately) situated at different villages was declared surplus, however, one M/s. Chotanagpur General Trading Company Ltd. Ranchi challenged the said notification with respect to 735.94 acres of the aforesaid land by filing a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 84 of 1977(R) but the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 10.08.1979 by quashing the impugned notification to the extent of the subject matter of the writ petition with a liberty to the revenue authority to issue notice to M/s. Chotanagpur General Trading Company Ltd. treating it as a land holder and then to proceed in accordance with law for the purpose of fixation of its surplus land, if any. Therefore, submission has been made that although the claim for chunk of land to the extent of 646.235 acres of land has been given up but since the writ petitioner has exercised option as under Section 9 of the Act, 1961 for retaining the land in its possession but the aforesaid land has also been clubbed while initiating a proceeding being Land Ceiling Case No. 01/1981-82 with the area to the extent of 735.94 acres of land even though there was no liberty to proceed afresh with respect to the land which was opted in pursuance to the provision as under Section 9 of the Act, 1961 and after taking into consideration this aspect of the matter the learned Single Judge is correct in interfering with the impugned orders since the impugned orders relates to the land which has been opted in pursuance to the provision of Section 9 of the Act, 1961 which has already been transferred in favour of the transferees and they are in possession after getting their land mutated in their favour.

He further submits that the other ground has been taken by the learned Single Judge in clubbing together the urban land with the agricultural land ignoring the statutory provision which govern declaring the surplus land situated in the urban area which is in pursuance to the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 and as also the Circular of the State Government has totally been given go-by which was issued on 08.03.1981 by the Department of Revenue Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, explaining therein that the urban land/municipality land shall be outside the purview of the Act, 1961. Further, by the notification dated 02.03.2012 issued by the Department of Urban Development, Government of Jharkhand, the land of Mouza-Bariatu, Gadi, Tiril, Lalpur, Chadri and Ranchi have been declared as urban land, therefore, since the learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the aforesaid grounds, has interfered with the impugned order and the same needs no interference by this Court sitting under the intra-court appeal.

12. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order.

This Court, before entering into the legality and propriety of the impugned order, deems it fit and proper to refer some undisputed facts for proper adjudication of the lis:

One M/s. Ranchi Zamindari Limited owned and possessed agricultural land as well as the land which were used purely for non-agricultural purposes. Out of the said land, various transfers were made to different persons, companies' etc. till the year 1962 as also the names of the transferees were duly mutated in the revenue records and the transferees have been paying rent of their respective lands to the State Government. Subsequent thereto, the name of M/s. Ranchi Zamindari Ltd. was changed to M/s. Ranchi Enterprises and Properties Ltd. A proceeding was initiated sometime in the year 1973 at the behest of the then Additional Collector, Lohardaga which was registered as Land Ceiling Case No. 240 of 1973-74 and vide notification dated 19.11.1976 which was published in the official gazette on 01.12.1976, altogether 1382 acres of land situated at different villages was declared surplus.
One M/s. Chotanagpur General Trading Company Ltd. Ranchi challenged the said notification with respect to 735.94 acres of the aforesaid land belonging to the said company by filing a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 84 of 1977(R) which was disposed of vide order dated 10.08.1979 by quashing the impugned notification to the extent of the subject matter of the writ petition, however, with a liberty to the revenue authority to issue notice to M/s. Chotanagpur General Trading Company Ltd. treating it as a land holder and then to proceed in accordance with law for the purpose of fixation of its surplus land, if any. Thereafter, a fresh proceeding was initiated vide Land Ceiling Case No. 01/1981-82 but in the said proceeding the land which was opted by the writ petitioner in exercise of the provision of Section 9 of the Act, 1961 has also been clubbed even though there was no liberty granted to the writ petitioner while disposing of the writ petition been C.W.J.C. No. 84 of 1977(R) on 10.08.1979 and by doing so, the State authority has committed gross error because the writ petitioner has exercised option under Section 9 of the Act, 1961.

The respondent-authorities have issued a show cause on 28.11.2011 issued by the respondent no. 4 annexing the copies of the notification dated 26.11.2011 and 29.11.2011, whereby the transfers of land made by the writ petitioner were held invalid and the Circle Officer, Kudu/Kisko and Bhandra were directed to cancel the jamabandi and enter the same in Register-II.

The State has taken plea while canceling the jamabandi over the land in question vide notification dated 26.11.2011 as also the order dated 29.11.2011 by which the transfer has been annulled by taking the ground that the land in question during pendency of the proceeding under the Act, 1961 has been transferred in favour of one or the other transferees which is nothing but only to frustrate the purpose and object of the Act, 1961 and taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the Circle Officer, Kudu/Kisko and Bhandra were directed to cancel the jamabandi and enter the same in Register-II, therefore, the same suffers from no error.

13. This Court, on the basis of the factual aspect as narrated hereinabove, is of the view that following issues are required to be answered before entering into the legality and propriety of the impugned order:

(i) Whether the action of the State authority in considering the land which has been opted in exercise of power conferred under Section 9 of the Act, 1961 can be said to be correct since no liberty was granted by this Court while passing the order on 10.08.1979 in C.W.J.C. No. 84 of 1977(R)

(ii) Whether the action of the State authority can be said to be justified in merging the urban land for declaring it surplus by taking the aid of the provision of the Act, 1961 and while doing so, will the action of the authority be not considered to be without jurisdiction and in violation of the notification dated 08.03.1981 issued by the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar and notification dated 02.03.2012 issued by the Department of Urban Development, Government of Jharkhand.

Issue No. 1:

14. So far as the said issue is concerned, it requires to refer herein at the risk of repetition that a proceeding was initiated under the provision of the Act, 1961 pertaining to 1382 acres of land which initially was declared to be surplus by virtue of the publication of the Official Gazette on 01.12.1976. One M/s. Chotanagpur General Trading Company Ltd. Ranchi challenged the said notification by filing a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 84 of 1977(R) which was disposed of vide order dated 10.08.1979 by quashing the impugned notification to the extent of the subject matter of the writ petition, however, with a liberty to the revenue authority to issue notice to M/s. Chotanagpur General Trading Company Ltd. treating it as a land holder and then to proceed in accordance with law for the purpose of fixation of its surplus land, if any. The extract of the said order is being quoted as under:

"...........

4. The declaration of the surplus area in so far as is claimed by the petitioner is concerned cannot be allowed to stand. The impugned notification as contained in annexure '5' is accordingly quashed to the extent that it will not affect the petitioner's interest in the land claimed by the petitioner. It will, of course, be opened for the competent Revenue Authority to issue notice under section 8 of the Act against the petitioner treating him as a land holder and then to proceed in accordance with law for the purpose of fixation of its surplus land, if any.

15. Thus, it is evident that vide order dated 10.08.1979 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 84 of 1977(R) liberty was granted to the State authority to file a fresh proceeding in terms of the land pertaining to an area of 735.94 acres of land. So far as rest of the land, i.e., 646 (approx.) acres is concerned, the writ petitioner has given up claim. But the writ petitioner had exercised option under Section 9 of the Act, 1961 which having not been implemented, moved to this Court by filing writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 2157 of 1989(R) and pursuant thereto, a direction was passed to move before the Board of Revenue.

The writ petitioner moved before the Board of Revenue and, as directed, he had provided an another option in pursuance to the provision of Section 9 of the Act, 1961 but the option which was exercised by the writ petitioner to the extent of 8.27 acres of land under Section 9 of the Act, 1961 since had already been acquired by various land holders and residential houses have been constructed, therefore, the writ petitioner was asked to exercise option of other land. However, before taking any final decision, a notice was issued to the writ petitioner clubbing the land which was opted by the writ petitioner for the purpose of declaring the aforesaid land to be surplus land. It was replied by the writ petitioner but the same having found to be not satisfactory, the impugned notification was issued on 26.11.2011 and in consequence thereof, vide order 29.11.2011, transfer of the land was annulled. Therefore, the question arises that whether the land which was opted by the writ petitioner in exercise of power conferred under Section 9 of the Act, 1961 can be allowed to be merged for declaring it to be surplus The answer of this Court would be negative because the Section 9 of the Act, 1961 provides as under:

"[9. Option of family to select its ceiling area. - (1) Where the area of land held by a family exceeds the ceiling area it shall have, subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) and other provisions of this Act the option to select, within the period prescribed in sub-section (3) of Section 10, the land which it desires to retain in accordance with the provisions of Section 5.

................. "

It is evident from the provision of Section 9 of the said Act that where the area of land held by a family exceeds the ceiling area it shall have, subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) and other provisions of this Act the option to select, within the period prescribed in sub-section (3) of Section 10, the land which it desires to retain in accordance with the provisions of Section 5.

Admittedly, the land in question has been opted for the purpose of retaining in view of the provision of Section 9 of the Act, 1961 and it is admitted case of the State that the aforesaid land which was opted under Section 9 has also been clubbed together for the purpose of declaring the land, in entirety, to be surplus. Since the provision of Section 9 has been carved out providing option to retain the part of the land in case of declaration of land to be surplus in view of the provision of the Act, 1961, the same cannot be allowed to be clubbed together for the purpose of declaring the land which has been opted under Section 9 of the Act, 1961 by the land holder, to be surplus one because the land in question as opted in view of the provision as contained in Section 9 of the Act, 1961, there was no liberty granted by this Court in the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 84 of 1977(R) as would be evident from the quoted part of the order as above.

It is also the admitted case of the writ petitioner that so far as rest of the land, out of 1382 acres of land, no dispute with respect to the decision of the State authority declaring it to be surplus one has been raised save and except, the right of retention of the land as provided under Section 9 of the Act, 1961.

The learned Single Judge, taking into consideration the decision of the State authority in clubbing the land opted under Section 9 of the Act, 1961 has considered it to be improper and has interfered with the impugned order, which, according to our considered view cannot be said to be unjustified.

Accordingly, the issue no. 1 is hereby answered.

Issue No. 2:

16. So far as the said issue is concerned, the other infirmity which has been considered by the learned Single Judge is the action of the State authority in making the provision of the Act, 1961 applicable even with respect to the land situated within the periphery of the urban area. It is not in dispute that for the purpose of declaring the surplus land in the urban area, a separate legislation has been promulgated in the name and style of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 and the very purpose of the same is to take steps for declaring the surplus land situated within the periphery of the urban area, therefore, in the considered view of this Court, when the provision of Act, 1961 is for the purpose of declaring the land to be surplus of the land situated within the periphery of the agricultural areas, that cannot be exercised for the purpose of declaring the land to be surplus one which is situated in the periphery of the urban areas.

17. The State Government has already come out with the notification in this regard way back in the year 08.03.1981 wherein it has been clarified that the urban land/municipality land shall be outside the purview of the Act, 1961. An another circular has been issued by the State of Jharkhand on 02.03.2012 wherein the land situated at Mouza-Bariatu, Gadi, Tiril, Lalpur, Chadri and Ranchi will be outside the purview of the Act, 1961 have been declared as urban land.

Admittedly, the land in question are situated at Mouza- Bariatu, Gadi, Tiril, Lalpur, Chadri and Ranchi are within the Ranchi Municipal Corporation/Urban agglomeration and are being used for residential as well as commercial purposes and therefore, the action of the State authority in applying the provision of the Act, 1961 cannot be said to be justified because for the purpose of declaring the urban land to be surplus one the relevant Act ought to have been applied, i.e., the Act, 1976, because if any provision has been made, the action of the State authority must be based on the basis of the aforesaid provision and any deviation from the same, if committed by the State, will be held to be without jurisdiction.

Herein also, the land situated at Mouza- Bariatu, Gadi, Tiril, Lalpur, Chadri and Ranchi are situated well within the periphery of the Ranchi District which is within the urban areas and therefore, initiating a proceeding by resorting to the provision of the Act, 1961 cannot be held to be proper since the Act, 1961, is exclusively to deal with the agricultural land and not the urban and.

The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the facts in entirety as discussed above and considering the action of the State authority in merging the land which was opted by the writ petitioner in view of the provision of Section 9 of the Act, 1961 as also applying the provision of the Act, 1961 for the purpose of declaring the land to be surplus which are situated within the Ranchi Municipal area, has interfered with the same, which according to the considered view of this Court, cannot be said to be suffer from any error.

18. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and stands dismissed.

19. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.