High Court
Case Details
1 C.W.J.C. No. 2880 of 1998 (R) … In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Babulal Gorai & Others … -V e r s u s- … Petitioners Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi & Ors. … Respondents. For the Petitioners For the Respondent-State For the Respondent No. 4
Legal Reasoning
: - M/s. A. K. Sahani and Ajit Kr., Advocates. : - Mr. Vijayant Verma, J.C. to G.P. II. : - M/s. R.P. Singh and B. K. Pandey, Advocates. … … P R E S E N T: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.P. BHATT. … By Court The petitioners by way of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 25.08.1998 passed by the Respondent No. 1 in Singhbhum S.A.R. Revision No. 151 of 1991 (Annexure-8) and the order dated 29.10.1991, passed by the Respondent No. 2 in S.A.R. Appeal No. 16 of 1991-92 (Annexure-6) and the order dated 14.09.1991 passed by the Respondent No. 3 in S.A.R. Case No. 55 of 1989-90 (Annexure-5), whereby a direction for restoration of possession of land in question in favour of the respondent no. 4 has been made under the provisions of Section 71-A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the Respondent-State as well as the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4. 3. 4. Perused the impugned orders as well as other materials placed on record. It appears that in the year 1975-76, an application was moved vide Annexure-3, and the learned L.R.D.C., Seraikella in R.P. Case No. 117 of 1976-77 rejected the application filed by the respondent no. 4 by holding that from the material on record, it was found that the petitioners' bearing possession of the land in question for a period of more than about 30 years. In the said order, the learned L.R.D.C. has also taken note of possession of the petitioners for the last 30 years. Thereafter, another application was moved in the year 1989 by the Respondent No. 4 vide S.A.R. No. 55 of 1989-90 and the learned Sub-Divisional Officer vide its order dated 14.09.1991 allowed the said application and issued order for restoration of possession to Circle Officer ('Anchal Adhikari'). Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order, the petitioners have preferred appeal vide S.A.R. Appeal No. 16 of 1991-92 before the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa and the said appeal was decided vide order dated 29.10.1991, whereby the appellate authority has confirmed the order passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Officer. Thereafter, the Revision application was preferred by the 2 present petitioners vide Singhbhum S.A.R. Revision No. 151 of 1991. The said revision filed by the petitioners was disallowed vide order dated 25th August, 1998. Being aggrieved by the above orders, the petitioners have preferred this writ application mainly on the ground that the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority have failed to appreciate and consider the grounds of res judicata, which was raised by the petitioners in the proceedings, filed before the appellate as well as the revisional authority. 5. The another ground, which was canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is with regard to non consideration of relevant provision of the C.N.T. Act, by these two authorities. The learned counsel for the petitioners by referring the order passed by the revisional authority, submitted that there is an error of record while recording the findings. It is further submitted that the Title suit was not the basis of acquisition of title over the land in question but it origins from the settlement. However, this point has not been properly dealt with and considered by the above authorities. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the first application was moved by the respondent no. 4 way back in the year 1975-76 and after rejection of the said application, another application was moved in the year 1989 i.e. almost after14 years. It is also submitted that the order passed by the L.R.D.C. in the year 1977 was never challenged by the respondent No. 4 and it has attained finality. However, without considering this fact, the learned appellate authority while dealing with the second application, preferred by the respondent no. 4 by ignoring the point of res judicata, passed an order in favour of the respondent no. 4 and therefore, the order of restoration of land in question may be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the appellate authority has not passed the reasoned order. The order itself indicates that without assigning any reason whatsoever, the appellate authority has rejected the appeal and thereby confirmed the order passed by the Sub-Divisional officer. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contentions has referred to and relied upon the judgments (i) in the case of Gadia Oraon & Ors.-versus-State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2004 (1) J.C.R. 237 (Jhr) and (ii) in the case of Sarmistha Sinha (in W.P. (C) No. 6768 of 2002) and Meera Prasad (in W.P. (C) No. 6729 of 2002) -versus-State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2010 (1) J.C.R. 130 (Jhr) and submitted that this Court had an occasion to deal with the issue regarding res judicata in a proceedings under Section 71 A of the C.N.T. Act and these two decisions are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. However, the settled position of law has not been properly considered by the appellate as well as the revisional authority. 6. As against this, the learned counsel for the Respondent-State Government while supporting the decisions taken by the Sub-Divisional Officer as well as the 3 appellate and the revisional authority, submitted that the respondents-State authorities while dealing with an application under Section 71 A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, passed order in consonance with the provisions of law and intervention of this Court is not needed in a petition filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-State Government further submitted that the petitioners have played fraud and obtained a fraudulent decree and therefore, in the light of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh-versus-Jagat Ram and another reported in 2010 S.C.C.R. 415, the petitioners have no locus whatsoever to challenge the orders passed by the respondents-authorities. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-State Government further submitted that the survey settlement was done in the year 1976 and the name of father of the opposite party was found in the said survey settlement and therefore, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners before the Sub-Divisional Officer as well as the appellate and the revisional authority was not accepted and accordingly, the decisions were given by these two authorities. It is further submitted that keeping in mind the survey settlement, which was done in the year1973, the second application was preferred by the respondent no. 4 in the year 1975. Since the second application was made in the year 1975, it was well within 30 years, as is prescribed under the C.N.T. Act. 7. Considering the aforesaid rival submissions and more particularly in view of the order passed by the appellate as well as the revisional authority, it transpires that the appellate authority has not dealt with the submissions made by the present petitioners in detail and the order passed by the appellate authority is a cryptic order without assigning any reason whatsoever. Such order cannot sustain in the eye of law and therefore, the said order is required to be quashed and set aside only on that ground alone. So far as the order passed by the revisional authority is concerned, it appears that the revisional authority has not taken into consideration the various points enumerated hereinabove, such as, one with regard to the res judicata, limitation and error of record as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It also appears that the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners (i) in the case of Gadia Oraon & Ors.-versus-State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2004 (1) J.C.R. 237 (Jhr) and (ii) in the case of Sarmistha Sinha (in W.P. (C) No. 6768 of 2002) and Meera Prasad (in W.P. (C) No. 6729 of 2002) -versus-State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2010 (1) J.C.R. 130 (Jhr) and the underlying principles have not been properly considered by these two authorities and therefore, the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside and the matter is required to be remanded to the Respondent No. 1, who is the first appellate authority for its de novo consideration, where all the relevant facts and 4 circumstances of the case can be considered afresh. Accordingly, the the order dated 25.08.1998 passed by the Respondent No. 1 in Singhbhum S.A.R. Revision No. 151 of 1991 (Annexure-8) and the order dated 29.10.1991, passed by the Respondent No. 2 in S.A.R. Appeal No. 16 of 1991-92 (Annexure-6) are ordered to be quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the Respondent No. 2, who is the first appellate authority for its de novo consideration. Since the order passed by the Sub-Divisional authority in S.A.R. 55 of 1989 has not been disturbed and the appellate authority has been directed to consider the entire case afresh, it is desirable that status, quo, as on today be maintained by the appellate authority till the outcome of the application. Accordingly, the appellate authority is directed to maintain status, quo, as on today, till the outcome of the application 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ application stands
Decision
disposed of. Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated – The 13th June, 2013 APK/N.A.F.R. (P.P. Bhatt, J.)