Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 92 (JHR)

Maya Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2006-02-06

N.N.TIWARI

body2006
Order Heard the parties. 2. In this writ petition the petitioner, amongst others, has prayed for quashing the order dated 31.1.2005/27.4.2005 whereby the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division has dismissed the revision application of the petitioner by a cryptic order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had taken several grounds in revision assailing the order of the Deputy Commissioner passed in restoration appeal, but none of the grounds has been considered by the learned Commissioner. The revision application has been dismissed mechanically without any application of mind. Learned counsel submitted that the provisions under Section 217 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act is a statutory remedy and the learned Commissioner has acted arbitrarily and contrary to law in dismissing the revision application in such laconic manner. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, while admitting that the impugned order of the Commissioner is not well reasoned, submitted that the Deputy Commissioner has dealt with the petitioner's grounds in. detail and had recorded reasons for not accepting the same and the learned Commissioner has affirmed the same, without going into detail. Learned counsel submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the Commissioner's order. 5. From perusal of the impugned order I find that the revision application has been disposed of only by two sentenced order which runs thus:- "Heard. Perused the order of learned D.C., Ranchi which is clear. It is evident from the order that the petitioner has no merit and land has been restored to its rightful owner the O.P. Therefore this petition is rejected. 6. In the revision application the order of the Deputy Commissioner was assailed on several grounds but the learned Commissioner has not assigned any reason to uphold the said order and to reject the grounds taken by the petitioner. The order is simply mechanical and non-speaking. The provision of revision under Section 217 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act is statutory. An authority acting in exercise of such statutory power is expected to act reasonably, and in conformity with the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and an order passed by such authority should be speaking and well reasoned, emanating proper application of mind therefrom. The impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner in SAR. Revision No. 37 of 2004, as contained in Annexure 4 being wholly non-speaking is unsustainable and is hereby quashed. The impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner in SAR. Revision No. 37 of 2004, as contained in Annexure 4 being wholly non-speaking is unsustainable and is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the learned Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi to consider the petitioner's revision application afresh and pass a speaking order, in accordance with law.