The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 4231 of 2021 1. Krishna Mahto @ Krishana Kumar Mahto, son of Late Lalkeshwar Mahto, aged about 45 years, 2. Dilip Mahto @ Dilip Kumar son of Late Lalkeshwar Mahto, aged about 47, 3. Baleshwar Mahto, son of late Soharai Mahto, aged about 65 years, 4. Lal Dhari Mahto, son of Shohari Mahto, aged about 60 years, all the resident of Village Huhuwa, Post Office- Kaitha, P.S.- Ramgarh, District- Ramgarh. Petitioners … … Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The settlement officer/Revenue Officer, survey and settlement office. Hazaribagh, at & P.O. Hazaribagh, P.S Hazaribagh, District Hazaaribagh 3. The Divisional Commissioner, North Chotanapur, Division, Hazaribagh at & P.O Hazaribagh, P.S Hazaribagh, District Hazaaribagh. 4. The Director of land & records, Project Building, Dhurwa Ranchi, at & P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 5. The Secretary, land reforms and Revenue, Government of Jharkhand, Dhurwa Ranchi, at & P.Ο Dhurwa, P.S Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 6. Kaila Ram, son of Kartik Ravidas, resident of Village Kothar, P.O- Kaitha P.S Ramagrh, District Ramgarh. 7. Lukhu Ram, son of Kartik Ravidas, resident of Village Kothar, P.O- Kaitha P.S Ramagrh, District Ramgarh. 8. Balo Ram, Son of Kartik Ravidas, resident of Village Kothar, P.O- Kaitha P.S Ramagrh, District Ramgarh. 9. Rajesh Ram, Son of Tinak Ravidas, resident of Village Kothar, P.O- Kaitha P.S Ramagrh, District Ramgarh. 10. Vijay Ram, Son of Tinak Ravidas, resident of Village Kothar, P.O- Kaitha P.S Ramagrh, District Ramgarh. 11. Anil Ram, Son of Tinak Ravidas, resident of Village Kothar, P.O- Kaitha P.S Ramagrh, District Ramgarh. … … Respondents And W.P.(C) No. 4251 of 2021 1. Krishna Mahto @ Krishana Kumar Mahto, son of Late Lalkeshwar Mahto, aged about 45 years, 2. Dilip Mahto @ Dilip Kumar son of Late Lalkeshwar Mahto, aged about 47, 3. Baleshwar Mahto, son of late Soharai Mahto, aged about 65 years, 4. Lal Dhari Mahto, son of Shohari Mahto, aged about 60 years, all the resident of Village Huhuwa, Post Office- Kaitha, P.S. Ramgarh., District- Ramgarh Petitioners … … 1. The State of Jharkhand Versus 2. The settlement officer/Revenue Officer, survey and settlement office. Hazaribagh, at & P.O. Hazaribagh, P.S Hazaribagh, District Hazaaribagh 3. The Divisional Commissioner, North Chotanapur, Division, Hazaribagh at & P.O Hazaribagh, P.S Hazaribagh, District Hazaaribagh. 4. The Director of land & records, Project Building, Dhurwa Ranchi, at & P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 5. The Secretary, land reforms and Revenue, Government of Jharkhand, Dhurwa Ranchi, at & P.O Dhurwa, P.S Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 6. Shibu Mahto, son of Banshi Mahto, resident of Village Huhuwa, P.O Kaitha, P.S Ramagrh, District Ramgarh. 7. Shankar Mahto Son Banshi Mahto, resident of Village Huhuwa, P.O Kaitha, P.S Ramagrh, District Ramgarh. … … Respondents And W.P.(C) No. 4253 of 2021 1. Dilip Mahto @ Dilip Kumar son of Late Lalkeshwar Mahto, aged about 47, 2. Krishna Mahto @ Krishana Kumar Mahto, son of Late Lalkeshwar Mahto, aged about 45 years, 3. Baleshwar Mahto, son of late Soharai Mahto, aged about 65 years, 4. Lal Dhari Mahto, son of Shoharai Mahto, aged about 60 years, all the resident of Village Huhuwa, Post Office- Kaitha, P.S.- Ramgarh, District Ramgarh. Petitioners … … Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The settlement officer/Revenue Officer, survey and settlement office. Hazaribagh, at & P.O. Hazaribagh, P.S Hazaribagh, District Hazaaribagh 3. The Divisional Commissioner, North Chotanapur, Division, Hazaribagh at & P.O Hazaribagh, P.S Hazaribagh, District Hazaaribagh. 4. The Director of land & records, Project Building, Dhurwa Ranchi, at & P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 5. The Secretary, land reforms and Revenue, Government of Jharkhand, Dhurwa Ranchi, at & P.O Dhurwa, P.S Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 6. Ruplal Sao, Son of Dedi Teli, resident of Village- Huhuwa, P.O- Kaitha P.S Ramagrh, District Ramgarh. 7. Chote Lal Sao, Son of Dedi Teli, resident of Village- Huhuwa, P.O- Kaitha P.S Ramagrh, District Ramgarh. 8. Panu Sao, Son of Dedi Teli, resident of Village- Huhuwa, P.O- Kaitha P.S Ramagrh, District Ramgarh. 9. Bikash Kumar, Son of Karu Sao, resident of Village-Huhuwa, P.O- Kaitha P.S Ramagrh, District Ramgarh. 2 10. Bicky Kumar, Son of Karu Sao, resident of Village-Huhuwa, P.O- Kaitha P.S Ramagrh, District Ramgarh. … … Respondents CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioners For the State
Legal Reasoning
--- : Mr. Asit Baran Mahata, Advocate : Mr. Upendra Nath Mahto, Advocate : Mr. Arun Kumar Dubey, AC to GP-VI : Mr. Saurav Mahto, AC to GP-I : Mr. Lav Kr. Tiwary, AC to AAG-V --- 05/19.11.2024 Learned counsel for the parties are present. 2. W.P.(C) No. 4231 of 2021 has been filed for the following reliefs:' /order/direction upon "That in the instant application the petitioners desirous for issuance the respondents, of appropriate writ particularly in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Notice dated 15/09/2021 in Revision Case No. 1431/2020 (Annexure-7) issued under section 89 of Chotanagpur tenancy Act 1908, by the Settlement officer, Hazaribagh in and the entire proceeding thereto, whereby and where under the petitioners have been called upon to appear for condonation of limitation and produce documents, for the land measuring 6.39 acres, Plot no. 2948/3060/1976 under Khata No. 285/101 of Village- Huhuwa, P.S.- Ramagrh, District- Ramgarh. And During pendency of the writ application the further proceeding in the Notice dated 15/09/2021 in Revision Case No. 1431/2020 may kindly be stayed." 3. W.P.(C) No. 4251 of 2021 has been filed for the following reliefs: "That in the instant application the petitioners desirous for issuance of appropriate writ /order/direction upon the respondents, particularly in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Notice dated 15/09/2021 in Revision Case No. 1430/2020 (Annexure-7) issued under section 89 of Chotanagpur tenancy Act 1908, by the Settlement officer, Hazaribagh in and the entire proceeding thereto, whereby and where under the petitioners have been called upon to appear for condonation of limitation and produce documents, for the land measuring 6.39 acres, Plot no. 2948/3060/1976 under Khata No. 285/101 of Village- Huhuwa, P.S. Ramagrh, District- Ramgarh. And 3 During pendency of the writ application the further proceeding in the Notice dated 15/09/2021 in Revision Case No. 1430/2020 may kindly be stayed." 4. W.P.(C) No. 4253 of 2021 has been filed for the following reliefs: "That in the instant application the petitioners desirous for issuance of appropriate writ /order/direction upon the respondents, particularly in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Notice dated 15/09/2021 in Revision Case No. 1432/2020 (Annexure-7) issued under section 89 of Chotanagpur tenancy Act 1908, by the Settlement officer, Hazaribagh in and the entire proceeding thereto, whereby and where under the petitioners have been called upon to appear for condonation of limitation and produce documents, for the land measuring 6.39 acres, Plot no. 2948/3060/1976 under Khata No. 285/101 of Village Huhuwa, P.S. Ramagrh, District- Ramgarh. And During pendency of the writ application the further proceeding in the Notice dated 15/09/2021 in Revision Case No. 1432/2020 may kindly be stayed." 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that under similar circumstances as involved in this case another writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 4336 of 2021 has been disposed of without interfering with the impugned notice dated 15.09.2021 and the said
Decision
writ petition has been disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners of the said case to raise all the points before the respondent no. 2 of the said case in the concerned revision case. In the said case, the concerned revision case was Revision Case No. 1433 of 2020. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in W.P.(C) No. 4231 of 2021 the concerned revision case is Revision Case No. 1431 of 2020, in W.P.(C) No. 4251 of 2021 the concerned revision case is Revision Case No. 1430 of 2020 and in W.P.(C) No. 4253 of 2021 the concerned revision case is Revision Case No. 1432 of 2020. The learned counsel submits that similar order may be passed in the present cases. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent- State has submitted that the required procedure has been followed and there is no illegality. However, he submits that the present cases can be disposed of in the 4 same terms as that of order dated 02.03.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4336 of 2021. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the petitioners have challenged the notice issued to them by the respondent no. 2 in limitation matter subsequent to filing of an application under section 89 of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. According to the petitioners, filing of representation by private respondents before the respondent no. 2 bypassing other statutory provisions, that too after long 14 years from the entries made in draft record of rights, is not maintainable. 9. This Court is of the view that the aforesaid aspects of the matter can be raised by the petitioners in the pending case (s) before the respondent no. 2. Hence, without interfering with the impugned notice dated 15.09.2021, these writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to raise all the available points before the respondent no. 2 in the concerned revision case as indicated above. 10. 11. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pankaj (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 5