1. Muzaamil Monsoor, son of Mansoor Ahmad 2. Farooque Azam, son of late Abdul v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi 3. The
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 2161 of 2014 1. Muzaamil Monsoor, son of Mansoor Ahmad 2. Farooque Azam, son of late Abdul Rauf Both are residents of “Gulistan Kothi” Kanke Road, Ranchi, P.O. Ranchi University, P.S. Gonda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand … … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi 3. The Additional Collector, Ranchi 4. The Special Officer (SAR), Ranchi 5. The Circle Officer, Sadar, Ranchi 6. Doman Munda 7. Jaypal Mundal Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are the sons of late Etwa Munda, residents of village Bariatu, P.O. Bariatu, P.S. Bariatu, District Ranchi, Jharkhand --- … … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners For the Resp. Nos. 1 to 5 For the Resp. Nos. 7 --- ---
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate : Vineet Prakash, Advocate : Mr. Manjul Prasad, Sr. Advocate Mr. A. Allam, Sr. Advocate Ms. Sushmita Kumari, Advocate 11/10th July 2024 1. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: - “for issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s), particularly in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 5.7.2006 passed in SAR Case No. 846/2005-06 by respondent No. 4, the order dated 26.03.2008 passed in SAR Appeal No. 76R 15/2006- 07 by respondent No. 3 and order dated 9.3.2009/31.5.2010 passed in SAR Revision No. 87/2008 by respondent No. 2, whereby and whereunder, the petition for restoration of the land under Section 71A has been passed in favour of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and the same has been confirmed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, which is absolutely illegal and arbitrary AND/OR 1 To grant such other relief/reliefs as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper to do conscionable justice to the petitioners.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a petition under Section 71A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act was filed before the Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation, Ranchi which was numbered as SAR Case No. 846 of 2005-06. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the entire order- sheet of the SAR Court to submit that the notice was never served upon the petitioners and ex-parte order was passed. He has in particular referred to order dated 14.02.2006 by which the notice was issued and order dated 17.03.2006 and order dated 30.03.2006 to submit that a specific recording has been made that notice has not been served. 5. The learned counsel submits that the appeal was filed before the Court of Additional Collector, Ranchi which was numbered as SAR Appeal No. 76R 15/2006-07 and the said appeal was rejected by observing that the notice was served upon the petitioners on 09.03.2006 but the petitioners did not appear on 17.03.2006. The learned counsel submits that the said finding is ex-facie perverse and contrary to the specific recording of the SAR Court dated 17.03.2006 and 30.03.2006 which records that the notice was not served. 6. The learned counsel further submits that thereafter the petitioners filed revision before the Court of Court of Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Chota Nagpur Division, Ranchi which has been rejected vide order dated 09.03.2009 by observing that in spite of repeated opportunities, the petitioners did not file any documents in any court. The learned counsel submits that the learned revisional court has not dealt with the plea of non-service of notice and since the notice was not served, there was no occasion for the petitioners to file any document. 7. The learned counsel submits that the impugned orders are perverse and therefore the same may be set-aside and the matter be remitted to the Special Officer (SAR) for fresh consideration. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents has opposed the prayer and has submitted that once the appellate court has recorded that the notice was served, there is no reason to disbelieve the same. 2 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has also supported the arguments of the private respondents. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the certified copy of the entire order-sheets of SAR Case No. 846/2005-06 has been placed on record and the said certified copy has not been disputed by any of the respondents while filing the counter-affidavit. The proceeding sheets of the SAR Court clearly reveal that the notice was issued on 14.02.2006 and specific recording has been made vide order dated 17.03.2006 and 30.03.2006 indicating that the service report of the notice is not on record. Thereafter in the entire order-sheet there is no mentioning that the notice was served to the petitioners . 11. It further appears that the petitioners had filed appeal which was numbered as SAR Appeal No. 76R 15/2006-07 wherein it was recorded that the notice was served on 09.03.2006. However, the entire order-sheet does not reflect service of notice upon the petitioners much less service of notice on 09.03.2006. On the one hand no material has been brought on record by the respondents to show that the notice was served and on the other hand there is a specific recording in order sheet of SAR Case dated 17.03.2006 and 30.06.2006 that the service report of the notice was not received and further there is no recording in the entire order-sheet thereafter that the notice was served upon the petitioners and that in spite of service of notice, the petitioners did not appear to contest the case or the proceeding was accordingly required to be set ex-parte. The entire order-sheet of the SAR Officer reveal that although the notice was issued but without placing any service report before the SAR officer and without recording anything about the service of notice, the final order was passed. 12. Thereafter, the petitioners had filed revision and the revisional court has not considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter and has simply stated that in spite of repeated opportunities, the petitioners did not file any document in any court. 13. This Court is of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the revisional court cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The order of the 3 appellate court is apparently contrary to the order-sheet of the SAR Court and apparently the SAR Court has passed order against the petitioners without recording service of notice. 14. In such circumstances, all the impugned orders are set-aside on account of gross violation of principles of natural justice the order of the SAR Officer has been passed against the petitioners without service of notice and the matter is remanded back to the S.A.R. Officer for fresh consideration after granting opportunity of hearing. 15. The parties are directed to appear before the Special Officer (SAR) on 30.08.2024. 16. The petitioners shall appear before the Special Officer (SAR) with their show cause reply and supporting documents . 17. Upon their appearance as aforesaid the Special Officer (SAR) is directed to proceed with the matter expeditiously and pass a final order within a period of three months from 30.08.2024 in accordance with law. 18. The parties to cooperate with the proceedings. 19. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. 20. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. Mukul (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 4