Santoshini Murmu aged about 50 years, Wife of Malin Hansda, Resident of Sabalpur, P.O v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 204 of 2019 Santoshini Murmu aged about 50 years, Wife of Malin Hansda, Resident of Sabalpur, P.O. & P.S. Saraidhela, District - Dhanbad. Versus … … Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad. P.O., P.S. and District - Dhanbad. 3. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. and District - Dhanbad. 4. Circle Officer, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. and District- Dhanbad. … … Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
direction passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4697 of 2018. 11. The petitioner to appear before the respondent no. 4 on 26th November 2024 along with a copy of this order and the records of this case. 12. On appearance of the petitioner, the respondent no. 4 shall pass fresh order after granting an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties without being influenced by any observation made in the impugned order dated 31st December 2018. The needful be done by the respondent no. 4 within a period of one month from 26th 3 November 2024. The fresh order so passed be communicated to the
Arguments
--- : Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate : Mr. Ramchander Sahu, Advocate : Mr. Aditya Raman, AC to GA-III --- 15/16.10.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: "That the Petitioner in this writ application prays for issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) for quashing the order dated 31.12.18 (Annexure 4/1) passed by the Respondent no. 4 in Mutation Case No. 1775/18-19 whereby and whereunder application for mutation in respect of land measuring 10.63 acres situated at C. S. Plot No. 410 and 416 under khata no. 45 mauza Sabalpur of the name of tenant/decree holder in the Register II has been rejected." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed Original Suit No. 262 of 2016 and the right, title, interest and possession of the petitioner was confirmed in the title suit. He submits that the State of Jharkhand and its other authorities were party in the said proceedings. He further submits that the petitioner had filed an application for mutation and when no order was passed, a writ petition was filed being W.P.(C) No. 4697 of 2018 seeking a direction upon the respondents particularly the Circle Officer, Dhanbad to decide the application filed by the petitioner for mutation of land involved in the present case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order dated 17.09.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4697 of 2018 and submits that this Court gave liberty to the petitioner to file fresh application before the respondent no. 4 (Circle Officer, Dhanbad) with prescribed fees for mutation of the land in question and it was directed that on receipt of the said application, the respondent no. 4, after following the due procedure prescribed under the Act of 1973 and providing due opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties, shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of 12 weeks. 5. The learned counsel submits that the order of this Court was brought to the notice of the Circle Officer, Dhanbad vide Annexure-4, but in spite of that, on 31st December 2018 the petition seeking mutation has been rejected without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He has submitted that the direction of this Court has been flouted and the decree clearly indicated possession in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that a finding was also recorded by the learned Trial Court that petitioner was in peaceful possession of the property. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the present writ petition be disposed of on the short point that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner in spite of clear direction by this Court vide order dated 17.09.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4697 of 2018. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- State has submitted that the matter may be remanded to the respondent no. 4 for passing fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties including the petitioner. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the petitioner had filed an application for mutation by virtue of the decree passed in title suit declaring right, title, interest and possession in favour of the petitioner in which the State of Jharkhand and its authorities were the defendants. When the application for mutation was not processed, a writ petition was filed seeking a direction upon 2 the respondent no. 4 to pass appropriate order. This Court vide order dated 17.09.2018 disposed of the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 4697 of 2018 considering the fact that the suit has been decreed in favour of the petitioner. The operative portion of the order dated 17.09.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4697 of 2018 is at paragraph 6 which is quoted as under: “6. Considering the aforesaid fact, the petitioner is given liberty to file a fresh application before the respondent no.4 along with prescribed fee for mutation of the land in question. On receipt of the said application, the respondent no.4 after following the due procedure prescribed under the Act, 1973 and providing due opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the application.” 9. This Court finds that the impugned order as contained in Annexure- 4/1 rejecting the application of the petitioner for mutation was communicated to the petitioner through online process and the said order was passed without granting any opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties including the petitioner. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the direction contained in order dated 17.09.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4697 of 2018 has not been followed by the respondent no.4. Consequently, the impugned order dated 31st December 2018 (Annexure-4/1) cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same is hereby set-aside. 10. The matter is remitted back to the respondent no. 4 for passing fresh order in accordance with law taking into consideration the
Decision
petitioner through speed post. 13. This writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. 14. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. Pankaj (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 4