The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI. W.P. (C) No. 4565 of 2005 … Shivdev Singh & Others -V e r s u s- The State of Jharkhand & Others … … Petitioners … Respondents.
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.P. BHATT. For the Petitioner For the Respondent nos. 1 to 4 For the Respondent No. 5 … : - Mr. V. P. Singh, Sr. Advocate. and Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, Advocate. : - Mr. Shyam Narsaria, J.C. to S.C. (L&C). : - Mr. S. D. Munda, Advocate. … 12/29.04.2013 The petitioners by way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 02.08.2005, passed by the Revisional authority in S.A.R. Revision No. 121 of 1999 as well as the order dated 20th July, 1999 passed by the appellate authority in S.A.R. Appeal No. 43 of 1990-91 (Annexure-8 and 7 respectively), whereby the appellate authority set aside the order dated-04.10.1990 passed by the L.R.D.C., Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur (Respondent No. 4) in R.P. Case No. 10 of 1984-85 (Annexure-6) and the revisional authority also confirmed the order passed by the appellate authority. 2. 3. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondents. Perused the impugned order as well as other materials placed on record. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are in possession of the land in question since 1940. According to him, the petitioners filed Title Suit No. 942 of 1964 in the Court of Munsif, Jamshedpur and the said suit was decided in the year 1964 in favour of the petitioners. Thereafter, the C.N.T. Act was enforced in the year 1977 and the private Respondents filed an application dated 07.06.1984 under Section 71 of the C.N.T. Act for restoration of the land in question and on the basis of their application, the L.R.D.C. started the proceedings and after hearing the parties concerned and after considering the evidence on record decided the matter in favour of the petitioners and rejected the application filed under Section 71 of the Act. The said order was reversed by the appellate authority. Thereafter, the revisional authority confirmed the order passed by the appellate authority. According to the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, the appellate authority passed order after a long gap and accordingly observation has been made by the appellate authority in its order that since he was busy in other administrative works, the order could not be pronounced earlier. Therefore, according to the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, the material which was produced on record and the argument, which was advanced by the petitioners, could not be properly appreciated by the appellate authority. It is further submitted that the revisional authority has also, without proper consideration of the question involved in the matter and without proper appreciation of the evidence on record passed an order and confirmed the order passed by the appellate authority and therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court. 5. As against that, the learned counsel for the Respondent-State Government as well as private respondents supported the order passed by the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority and submitted that both the authorities after careful consideration of the material placed on record, passed an order and rejected the appeal as well as revision, as there was no material in the case. It is further submitted that the view taken by the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority is in accordance with law and therefore, the present writ petition, having no merit, may be rejected. 6. Considering the aforesaid rival submissions and on perusal of the material on record, it appears that the application under Section 71 of the C.N.T. Act was filed by the private respondents on 07.06.1984 and thereafter, the L.R.D.C., after hearing the parties concerned passed an order and thereby rejected the application filed under Section 71 of the Act. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order, the Respondent No. 5 filed S.A.R. Appeal No. 43 of 1990-91 before the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur (Annexure-7). It appears that the said appeal was filed in the year 1990-91 under Section 215 of the C.N.T. Act. The said appeal was decided by order dated 20th July, 1999. Thus, it appears that after conclusion of the arguments, judgment was delivered after long gap and therefore, while concluding the order, the learned appellate authority observed that the order could not be pronounced earlier by him on account of his pre occupation in law and order and other administrative work. Therefore, I found substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the material, which was produced before the appellate authority was not properly considered and appreciated by the appellate authority and therefore, this Court is of the view that the matter is required to be considered de novo and the order passed by the appellate authority deserves to be quashed and set aside. It also appears that the revisional authority without proper appreciation of the evidence on record confirmed the view taken by the appellate authority and therefore, the order passed by the revisional authority also deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter is required to be remitted for its de novo consideration. 7. Accordingly, the order dated 02.08.2005, passed by the Revisional authority in S.A.R. Revision No. 121 of 1999 as well as the order dated 20th July, 1999 passed by the appellate authority in S.A.R. Appeal No. 43 of 1990-91 (Annexure-8 and 7 respectively), both are ordered to be quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the appellate authority for its de novo consideration. The appellate authority before passing the final order shall issue fresh notices to the parties and after their appearance, give an opportunity of being heard to them and the parties will be at liberty to produce the relevant material in support of their contentions. 8.
Decision
With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. APK (P.P. Bhatt, J.)