p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 4216 of 2023 ---- 1. Debranjan Mallik, aged about 54 years, son of Late Dibyendra Chandra Mallik, resident of J. C. Mallick Road, Opposite Police Line, Hirapur, PO & PS: Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad. 2. Swapna Mallik, aged about 75 years, widow of Late Samarendra Chandra Mallik, resident of Kulti Sripur Road, PO & PS: Kulti, PIN-713343, District Paschim Burdwan, West Bengal. 3. Mrs. Nandita Sen, aged about 61 years, wife of Mr. Surojit Sen, daughter of Late Dibyendra Chandra Mallik, resident of Block AA-180, First Floor Sector, Salt Lake City, Kolkata- 700064, PO: Bidhannagar (CC Block), PS: Bidhannagar (North), Distric-Kolkata, West Bengal 4. Mrs. Malobika Sengupta, aged about 56 years, wife of Mr. Kaushik Sengupta, daughter of Late Subhendra Chandra Mallik, resident of Flat No. 1005, Devika Apartment, Opposite Shoprix Mall, Dharam Marg, Sector -4, Vaishali, I.E. Sahibabad, PO: Sahibabad, PS: Kaushambi, District Ghaziabad-201010, Uttar Pradesh 5. Mrs. Nibedita Mallik, aged about 49 years, wife of Debmalya Chowdhury, daughter of Late Subhendra Chandra Mallik, resident of Block-A, Flat 4D, Sangarvilla, RRA/8 Ragunathpur, PO & PS: Baguihati, District- East Kolkata 700059 ………Petitioners Versus 1. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, a subsidiary of Coal India Limited, having its Head Office at Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, PO & PS: Saraidhela, District-Dhanbad through its Chairman-cum- Managing Director. 2. General Manager (Estate), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, PO & PS: Saraidhela, District- Dhanbad ……Respondents ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate ---- C.A.V ON 03.12.2024 PRONOUNCED ON 20/02/2025 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioners paying therein for commanding upon the respondents to hand over the vacant possession of the land p. 2 measuring an area of 3.88 acres appertaining to CS Plot No. 3262/3962, 2090 and 2038 recorded under CS Khata No. 142 Mouza-Kolakusma in the district of Dhanbad. In alternative, a direction be issued upon the respondents to hold an inquiry and pay compensation at the prevailing market rate as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 2. Learned counsel of the petitioners has submitted that the land forming subject matter of the instant petition is situated Mouza-Kolakusma within the district of Dhanbad appertaining to CS Plot No. 3262/2962, 2090 and 2038 recorded under CS Khata No. 142. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘scheduled land’). Learned counsel further submitted that the ex-landlady, Rani Pragya Kumari settled the scheduled land in favour of the ancestor of the petitioners, namely one Sourindra Chandra Malik along with one Jagat Chandra Sarkar. After the land was settled, the ancestors of the petitioners came in peaceful possession of the land. The scheduled land stood mutated and revenue rent was paid to the state of Bihar till 1985. Thereafter, the land was amicably divided and partitioned wherein land admeasuring 3.885 acres out of a total area of 7.67 acres was allotted to each family. The lis between the parties in the instant writ arose when Respondent No. 1 floated a tender for construction of a boundary wall on a portion of the scheduled land. The predecessors of the petitioners along with the members of the family of Jagat Chandra Sarkar raised objections; however respondent no. 1 proceeded with the construction. Ultimately, the son of late Jagat Chandra Sarkar, namely Kalyan Sarkar instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 151 of 1994 in the Court of Subordinate Judge-I, Dhanbad, praying for a declaration confirming the possession of the plaintiffs therein and further for grant of all rayati rights. The p. 3 respondent nos. 1 and 2 were impleaded as parties in the said suit. The ancestor of the petitioners (who are descendants of Sourindra Chandra Malik) were also parties in the suit and had supported the case of the plaintiff. The suit was decreed in the favour of the plaintiff. The judgement was delivered on 29.02.2012 and decree was prepared on 6.3.2012. Learned counsel further submitted that even after the judgement and decree stood in favour of the plaintiff, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 did not vacate the land, rather started construction of permanent structures. The plaintiffs of the suit filed an execution case being Execution Case No. 4 of 2013. Miscellaneous Civil Application being M.C.A No. 655 of 2018 was filed for appointment of Advocate Commissioner for local inspection. The said application was allowed vide order dated 6.5.2019. In the meantime, an appeal being Title Appeal No. 43 of 2012 was preferred by the respondents herein in which the petitioners were was also arrayed as respondents. The said appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 29.07.2016. The second appeal being Second Appeal No. 73 of 2017 was also dismissed by this Court vide judgement dated 18.6.2020. The said judgement was assailed by the Respondent by filing Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court being SLP (C) No. 1278 of 2021 which was also dismissed by an order dated 3.2.2021. Thus, the right, title and interest of the parties in the suit was settled and it was held that Defendant/Respondent No. 1 and 2 was not having any right over the suit property and the raiyati status of the petitioners stood confirmed. Learned counsel further submitted that once the lis was laid to rest by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioners submitted an application before the respondent for release of compensation. A legal notice dated 30.3.2022 was also served upon the respondent; however no reply was received. It has p. 4 been submitted that the petitioner has absolute right, title and interest over the scheduled property; however the same has been usurped by the respondent illegally. It is submitted that the action of the respondent violates the constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel for the Respondent-BCCL has submitted that the land is recorded as government land in the khatiyan and was transferred to it on 2.5.1989 as such no compensation is payable to the petitioners. It is further submitted that the settlement made in favour of the ancestors of the petitioners was only to defeat the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 which would be evident from the fact that the deed was executed on 4.4.1946 while the cut-off date was 1.1.1946. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the settlement is fit to be cancelled and annulled in exercise of powers conferred under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. An application to this effect being Reference Case No. 3/2021 was also made by the respondents before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Dhanbad. It is submitted that the jamabandi running in favour of the ancestors of the petitioners was created by playing fraud on the government. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has opposed to the above and submitted that similar pleadings were made before the Ld. Civil Court and subsequent Courts of Appeal, which were rejected by all. 5. After considering the entire pleadings and rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court has gone through the judgment of the Civil Court in Title Suit No. 151 of 1994. The said judgement has attained its finality as the first appeal, second appeal and the special leave petition, all filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 was dismissed. The Ld. Civil court in Title Suit No. 151 of 1994 had specifically framed p. 5 issue with respect to the validity, genuineness and legality of the settlement of the scheduled property in favour of the ancestors of the petitioners, namely Jagat Chandra Sarkar. The issue was decided in favour of the petitioners (who were Performa Respondents in the title suit and had supported the case of the Plaintiff). It is not in dispute that the Plaintiff in the Title Suit and the petitioners herein claim right, title and interest over the scheduled property from the same deed of settlement and as such through the same transaction. It is admitted that the respondents have lost up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and as such the right, title and interest of the petitioners cannot be questioned. The averments made by the respondents in their counter affidavit with respect to Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 does not hold any merit as a court of competent jurisdiction has already returned finding with respect to the issue. Once the civil court has adjudicated the dispute after taking into consideration oral and documentary evidences and such finding has been affirmed all the way up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondents are precluded from making any statement/averment questioning the right, title an interest of the petitioners. Such submission is misplaced for the reason that there is no pending 4(h) proceedings and not proceedings under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 can be initiated as the same will be hit by the principles of res judicata. The contention of the respondents suffers from presumption and assumption. 6. In view of the aforesaid finding the issue which falls for consideration as to what relief the petitioner is entitled. 7. This court cannot keep its eyes shut towards the fact that the respondent has deprived the petitioners from enjoying their property. The respondent comes within the definition of ‘State’ as contemplated under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is accordingly expected to act with bonafide. It has to p. 6 be conscious of the rights of the individuals conferred by the constitution of India and other statutes. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lachhman Dass vs. Jagat Ram and Ors. (20.02.2007 - SC) : MANU/SC/7133/2007, has laid down that Article 300A of the Constitution of India is not an empty formality and encompasses a human right. The relevant portion of the judgement is reproduced as under:- “Despite such notice, the appellant was not impleaded as a party. 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 of a statute. If a superior right to hold a property is claimed, the procedures therefore must be complied with. The conditions precedent therefore must be satisfied.” The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of The Principal Secretary (Revenue) to the Govt of H.P. and Ors. vs. Ramka (06.10.2023 - HPHC) : MANU/HP/1835/2023, has held that when a person has been deprived of the constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, it is open for him to file a writ petition praying for payment of adequate compensation or restoration of possession of the land. 8. At the stage of argument, learned counsel for the petitioners has made a submission at bar that he is not praying for restoration of possession if the respondent authorities make payment of compensation. 9. Considering the facts of the case, this Court finds that the petitioners have been deprived from enjoyment of their property; as such are entitled to be suitably compensated. Accordingly, a writ of mandamus is issued upon the respondent to compute the compensation payable in accordance with the applicable law and make payment of the same to the petitioners within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Page 7 of 7 10. The instant application is accordingly stands allowed. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) jk AFR