Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 338 (JHR)

Chandra Shekhar Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

2002-03-12

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2002
ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Tiwary, counsel has already appeared on behalf of Respondent Nos. 4 and 6 and filed counter-affidavit. 2. Mr. ManoJ Tandon counsel states that he will appear and file Vekalatnama on behalf of respondent No. 7 to 17 in course of a day. 3. Notices on Respondent Nos. 18 to 21 has been reported to be validly served. 4. However, it is not necessary to hear the respondents for the present, except respondent Nos. 4 to 6 in view of order, this Court intends to pass. 5. This application has been preferred by petitioner against the order dated 28.2.2000 passed by S.D.O.. Madhupur, Deoghar. The main plea taken by the petitioner is that the order is without jurisdiction as the S.D.O. has no power to confirm any patta that too issued in the year 1942 in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 6 as claimed by them. 6. Counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 has made preliminary objection on the ground of alternative remedy of appeal. However, according to counsel for the petitioner, the order dated 28.2.2000 being not in accordance with the provisions of the Act, no appeal under Section 57 is maintainable. In this regard, the stand of the counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 is that the S.D.O. has jurisdiction to fix rent as made vide order dated 28.2.2000. 7. On hearing the parties and from enclosures, it appears that there is a disputed question of fact as to who is in possession over the land in question. Further, it appears that the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 have already preferred an appeal as stated by them, they being not satisfied with the part of the order dated 28.2.2000. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is desirable that the petitioner should avail alternative remedy of appeal against the order dated 28,2.2000. 9. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appeal will be time barred if allowed to be filed at this stage. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is desirable that the petitioner should avail alternative remedy of appeal against the order dated 28,2.2000. 9. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appeal will be time barred if allowed to be filed at this stage. However, as it appears that the petitioner had already moved against the order before the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3443/2000 which remained pending and thereafter present one in the interest of justice, it is ordered that if any appeal is preferred by petitioner against the order dated 28.2.2000 with a petition for condonation of delay before the appellate authority within four weeks, the said authority will condone the delay and after notice to the parties, will decide the issues as raised on merit, preferably within six months. 10. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations.