Rajiv Kumar Tekriwal son of late Banwari Lal Tekriwal, aged about 44 years, Resident v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 1515 of 2020 Rajiv Kumar Tekriwal son of late Banwari Lal Tekriwal, aged about 44 years, Resident of village-Tulsikitta, P.O.- Pathargama, P.S.- Pathargama, District-Godda, Jharkhand. Versus … … Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Commissioner, Santhal Parganas Division, Dumka, P.O- Dumka, P.S- Dumka, District- Dumka, Jharkhand. 3. Deputy Commissioner, Godda, P.O- Godda, P.S- Godda, District- Godda, Jharkhand. 4. Settlement Officer, Dumka, P.O- Dumka, P.S-Dumka, District- Dumka, Jharkhand. 5. Sub Division Officer, Mahagama, P.O- Mahagama, P.S- Mahagama, District-Godda, Jharkhand. 6. Sk. Mouzam son of Lt. Aminuddin resident of village Samri, P.O- Mahagama, P.S- Mahagama, District-Godda, Jharkhand. 7. Sk. Azim son of Lt. Aminuddin resident of village Samri, P.O- Mahagama, P.S- Mahagama, District-Godda, Jharkhand. 8. Md. Zahirudin son of late Sk. Kaushar, resident of village Samri, P.O- Mahagama, P.S- Mahagama, District-Godda, Jharkhand. 9. Sk. Kabir son of Lt. Sekhawat, resident of village Samri, P.O- Mahagama, P.S- Mahagama, District- Godda, Jharkhand. 10. Sk. Mazhar son of Lt. Sekhawat, resident of village Samri, P.O- Mahagama, P.S- Mahagama, District Godda, Jharkhand. 11. Sk. Azhar son of Lt. Sekhawat, resident of village Samri, P.O- Mahagama, P.S- Mahagama, District Godda, Jharkhand. … … Respondents For the Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
--- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- : Mr. J.J. Sanga, Advocate : Mr. Randhir Kr. Sharma, Advocate : Ms. Sweta Shukla, AC to AAG-II : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Faizur Rahman, Advocate : Mr. Kundan Ambastha, Advocate --- For the State For the Respondents 13/27.11.2024 1. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. This petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- “i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/direction(s) for quashing of the order dated 24.09.2019 (annexure-9) passed 1 by the Learned Commissioner, Santhal Parganas Division, Dumka in Revenue Misc Appeal No. 280/1996-97 whereby and where under the order dated 10.09.1996 passed by the Charge Officer, Dumka in Misc. case no. 187/1996 has been set aside. ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/direction(s) to remand this instant case for fresh adjudication, because without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the impugned order dated 24.09.2019 (annexure-9) has been passed by the Learned Commissioner, Santhal Parganas Division, Dumka in Revenue Misc Appeal No. 280/1996-97. iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) / order(s)/direction(s) as Your Lordship may deem for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.” fit and proper 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 24.09.2019 passed in RMA Case No. 280 of 1996-97 is an ex-parte order so far as the petitioner [who was the respondent in the case] is concerned. The learned counsel submits that the RMA case was pending since 1996-97 and while passing the impugned order, it has been recorded that the respondent of the case was absent since long and no Pairvi was being taken by them after repeated call. It was recorded that the appeal was pending for 23 years and therefore, for the ends of justice the appeal was heard ex-parte and the matter was decided. 4. The learned counsel has referred to the order sheet of RMA Case No. 280 of 1996-97 and has submitted that vide order dated 07.02.2003 a petition was filed by the appellants therein to call for the lower court records and the matter was directed to be posted on 05.05.2003. Thereafter, the next order sheet is of the year 2007 and thereafter the order sheet is dated 19.08.2019. The learned counsel submits that the matter was taken up after a long time and it was heard ex-parte on 19.08.2019 and the immediate previous date is of the year 2007. 5. He submits that when the matter was taken after a long time, either notice should have been issued or one or two dates should have been given so that the parties could appear and advance their argument. It is submitted that on account of the manner in which the 2 impugned order has been passed, the petitioner has been deprived of advancing arguments on merits of the case and place his case before the Court of Learned Commissioner, Santhal Parganas Division, Dumka. 6. He has also submitted that in the order of 2007, it has been inserted in pen to keep the matter on 19.08.2019 and such endorsement has been made on 06.08.2019 which is in the same pen as the order dated 19.08.2019. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent as well as the State do not dispute the arguments made by the petitioner on the basis of the order sheet placed on record. However, they submit that the matter may be remanded back for fresh consideration. 8. After hearing the learned counsel of the parties, this Court finds that the matter remained pending before the Commissioner for a long time and on 07.02.2003 the lower court record was called for and it was directed to be posted on 05.05.2003 and thereafter, an order dated 13.09.2007 was drawn and ultimately the impugned order dated 19.08.2019 was passed mentioning that the petitioner who were the respondents before the court of Commissioner remained absent. 9. This Court is of the considered view that the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently, the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law as this has resulted in prejudiced to the petitioner in view of the fact that the stand taken by the petitioner has not been taken into consideration. 10. Consequently, the impugned order dated 24.09.2019 passed in RMA Case No. 280 of 1996-97 is hereby set aside and matter is remitted back to the court of Commissioner, Santhal Parganas Division, Dumka for passing fresh order in accordance with law after granting an opportunity of hearing to the parties and taking into consideration the materials on record. 11. The parties are directed to be appear before the Commissioner Santhal Parganas Division, Dumka on 03rd January, 2025 and upon 3 their appearance, the parties be heard and appropriate order be passed after granting opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering the materials on record within the period of three months from the date of appearance. 12. This order is being passed only for the reason that the petitioner has not been granted an opportunity of hearing by the concerned authorities. 13. It is further observed that this Court has not gone into the merits of the rival contentions and the authority is free to pass appropriate order on the merits of the case in accordance with law. Rakesh/- (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 4