Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 820 (JHR)

Purnima Sao v. State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

2005-11-24

R.K.MERATHIA

body2005
ORDER R.K. Merathia, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. The predecessors in the interest of the petitioner Dipali Rani Sao @ Dipali Sao, wife of late Gyani Prasad Sao filed this writ petition for quashing the order dated 29th January, 1996 passed by Settlement Officer Incharge, Jamshedpur in Case No. 1 of 1995, under Section 87 of the C.N.T. Act (as contained in Annexure-1). 3. The main ground taken in this writ petition is that without affording any reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, the said order was passed against her. 4. Mr. C.S. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that records of right were finally published sometime in the year 1983. The case No. 159/8687, under Section 90 of the C.N.T., Act filed by the State was dismissed on 25.8.1995 with liberty to take recourse to Section 87 of the C.N.T. Act. On 30.9.1995 the State filed the suit in question in case No. 1 of 1995, in which petitioner appeared on 15.1.1996 by filing vakalatnama The case was fixed on 22.1.1996 on which date, the state did not appear. Petitioner prayed for adjournment. The case was fixed on 29.1.1996, on which date the petitioner could not appear. Learned counsel submitted that without fixing a date for ex parte hearing, the case was disposed of on the same day. He further submitted that the case was barred by limitation. 5. Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel for the State, submitted that the case No. 1 of 1995 was filed on 30.9.1995 i e. within three months from the date of the said decision dated 25.8.1995 passed under Section 90 of the C.N.T. Act and therefore the case was not time barred. 6. He further submitted that due to non-appearance of the petitioner on 29.1.1996, authority had to pass the impugned order ex parts. Mr. Mehta lastly submitted that order in question is appealable and petitioner can raise all the points before the appellate authority i.e. Judicial Commissioner who can look into the cases of the parties. 7. After hearing the parties, I am satisfied that case No. 1 of 1995 was not time barred. However, directing the petitioner to approach the appellate authority at this stage will also not be proper. It will be proper if the original authority consider the cases of the parties at the first instance. 8. 7. After hearing the parties, I am satisfied that case No. 1 of 1995 was not time barred. However, directing the petitioner to approach the appellate authority at this stage will also not be proper. It will be proper if the original authority consider the cases of the parties at the first instance. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29,1.1996 passed in Case No. 1 of 1995 is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Settlement Officer (respondent No. 2) for passing a fresh order in accordance with law. Petitioner is directed to appear before him on 9th January, 2006 alongwith his pleadings and documents. The respondent No. 2 will fix date of hearing of the case, and after hearing the parties, will pass a reasoned order in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. The parties will cooperate in early disposal of the matter. 9. With this observations/directions, this petition is disposed of. No costs.