The Commissioner of Income Tax III vs. Ms/Mrs Snehalata Galada,

3 L.P.A No.56 of 2010 70. Rameshwar Sao, s/o late Sahdeo Sao, 71. Ram Charan Sao, s/o late Jaleshwar Sao. 72. Sobran Sao, s/o late Jaleshwar Sao. 73. Nil Ratan Sao, s/o late Jaleshwar Sao. 74. Meghnath Sao, s/o late Jaleshwar Sao. 75. Mahendra Sao, s/o late Jaleshwar Sao. 76. Jag Mohan Sao, s/o late Chhatrapal Sao. 77. Sudesh Prasad, s/o Janak Sao. 78. Kishore Prasad, s/o Ramanand Sao. 79. Bindeshwar Prasad, s/o Mathura Sao. 80. Mahavir Prasad, s/o late Lakhan Sao. 81. Surendra Prasad, s/o late Lakhan Sao. 82. Phulendra Prasad, s/o late Lakhan Sao. 83. Santosh Prasad, s/o late Lakhan Sao. Respondent nos. 7 to 83 all are r/o village-Saunda Basti, PO-Saunda “D” Colliery, PS-Patratu, District-Hazaribagh, now Ramgarh. … Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA For the Appellants : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mrs. Vandana Singh, Sr. SC-III For the Private Respondents : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Chanchal Jain, Advocate

-------- O R D E R 7th April 2022 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J. A supplementary counter-affidavit dated 5th April 2022 on behalf of the private respondents is tendered in the Court. 2. Taken on record. 3. M/s Central Coalfields Limited (in short, CCL) is in appeal against the order dated 3rd July 2008 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1805 of 2002. 4. The order dated 3rd July 2008 reads as under: “After hearing some argument I am of the view that the relief as granted by both the learned Single Judge as well as Division Bench of this Court in similar matter will also apply to the petitioner as well. He can also invoke the jurisdiction of Civil Court to get his title declared with consequential benefit, if so advised. The writ petition is disposed without any order as to costs.”

4 L.P.A No.56 of 2010 this Court is reminded of the duties of the writ Court to record brief facts of the case, submissions made on behalf of both the parties and its independent findings on the issues raised in the petition. A writ Court while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is assigned a duty in law to apprise itself the legal position as regards the prayers made in the petition, to take affidavit and if necessary further affidavit from the State so as to arrive at a conclusion whether the prayer if granted would be contrary to any law or against public interest. 6. In a recent judgment in “Vishal Ashwin Patel v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (S) Circle 25(3) & Ors.” 2022 Live Law (SC) 322 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “2.1 The manner in which the High Court has dealt with and disposed of the writ petitions without passing any reasoned order is not appreciated by this Court. When a number of issues/grounds were raised in the writ petitions, it was the duty cast upon the court to deal with the same and thereafter, to pass a reasoned order. When the Constitution confers on the High Courts the power to give relief it becomes the duty of the Courts to give such relief in appropriate cases and the Courts would be failing to perform their duty if relief is refused without adequate reasons. 2.2 The High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was required to have independently considered whether the question of reopening of the assessment could be raised in a writ petition and if so, whether it was justified or not. 2.3 While emphasising the necessity to pass a reasoned order, in the case of Central Board of Trustees Vs. Indore Composite Private Limited, (2018) 8 SCC 443, it is observed and held by this Court that the courts need to pass a reasoned order in every case which must contain the narration of the bare facts of the case of the parties to the lis, the issues arising in the case, the submissions urged by the parties, the legal principles applicable to the issues involved and the reasons in support of the findings on all the issues arising in the case and urged by the learned counsel for the parties in support of its conclusion. It is further observed in the said decision that an order bereft of reasoning causes prejudice to the parties because it deprives them to know the reasons as to why one party has won and other has lost. 2.4 In the recent decision in the case of Union Public Service Commission Vs. Bibhu Prasad Sarangi and Ors., (2021) 4 SCC 516, while emphasising the reasons to be given by the High Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is observed and held by this Court that the reasons constitute the soul of judicial decision and how Judges communicate in their judgment is a defining characteristic of judicial process since quality of justice brings legitimacy to the judiciary. It is further observed that though statistics of disposal of cases is important of higher value is the intrinsic content of judgment. It is further observed that in exercise of powers under Article 226 the courts require to independently consider the issues involved.” 7. As we gather from the materials on record, Birbal Sahu and others claiming compensation and employment from CCL

5 L.P.A No.56 of 2010 which according to them acquired their lands approached the writ Court in C.W.J.C No. 135 of 1999(R) in the proceeding of which a counter-affidavit was filed by CCL denying their claim as regards 7.24 acres of land comprised under Plot No. 12 within Khata No. 1. Before the writ Court, CCL set up a case that the State of Bihar transferred the aforesaid land in favour of CCL and rest of 1.42 acres lands were under the possession of the Mines Board, Hazaribagh and the said acquisition was published in the Official Gazette. The writ petition was finally dismissed on the ground that claim of the petitioners as regards right, title and interest over the lands in question cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. The order dated 6th November 2000 passed in C.W.J.C No. 135 of 1999 (R) was modified by the Letters Patent Court by an order dated 19th January 2001 passed in L.P.A No. 439 of 2000 to the extent that if the lands belonged to the applicants they were at liberty to agitate the issue before appropriate forum. In the said order it was further indicated that if the applicants approach the Government of Jharkhand it shall remain open to the Government of Jharkhand to deal with their representation on merits and in accordance with law. 8. Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Senior counsel for the private respondents, on instructions from Mr. Chanchal Jain, the learned vice-counsel, states that the persons who were before the writ Court in C.W.J.C No. 135 of 1999 (R) approached the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh who in turn directed the Sub Divisional Officer, Ramgarh to submit a report as regards right, title and interest and possession of the applicants over the lands in question and on the basis of the report submitted by Circle Officer, Patratu, the Sub Divisional Officer, Ramgarh, passed an order on 27th September 2001 in the proceeding of Case No. I.R.R. No. 8 of 2001- 02 and this is the order which has been challenged by CCL in W.P. (C) No. 1805 of 2002. 9. As we have recorded the writ Court's order dated 3rd July 2008 does not deal with any of the issues which arise in the aforesaid facts of the case. Merely observing that in similar matters this Court has directed the applicant to get adjudication from a

6 L.P.A No.56 of 2010 Civil Court about right, title and interest over the lands in question, W.P.(C) No. 1805 of 2002 came to be disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 10. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, the learned counsel for the appellants, submits that a specific challenge was made before the writ Court to legality of the order dated 27th September 2001 by the Sub Divisional Officer, Ramgarh raising a question on jurisdiction of the authority to declare title in a summary proceeding like that. 11. We refrain from entering into any of the issues which may arise before the writ Court and would simply set-aside the order dated 3rd July 2008 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1805 of 2002 with a direction to the Registry to restore the writ petition to its original files. 12. Consequently, the order dated 26th March 2002 in W.P.(C) No. 1805 of 2002 stands revived. 13. L.P.A No. 56 of 2010 is allowed in the above terms.

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 7th April 2022 Amit/