Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 787 (JHR)

Shyama Nand Pandey v. State of Jharkhand

2007-10-03

AMARESHWAR SAHAY, M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM

body2007
JUDGMENT 1. The appellant was the 6th respondent in the writ petition. According to the counsel for the appellant the learned Single Judge has committed a serious error in directing for restoration of possession to the petitioner in the writ petition having held that the matter can only be settled in the civil court. Further it was pointed out that the order of cancellation passed by the S.D.O. is well within his jurisdiction since the land belongs to the Government. He also cited various decisions in order to substantiate his plea that the order of the S.D.O. is perfectly justified and the order of the learned Single Judge is not valid in law. 2. There is no dispute in the fact that Ashok Kumar Singh, the petitioner in the writ petition, was made as a tenant by the college authority in February, 2001 and he is paying rent from 15.02.2001. This order of allotment was subsequently cancelled on the application filed by the appellant, Shyama Nand Pandey, the 6th respondent, saying that he is prepared to pay the rent. On that basis the same was cancelled. To execute the order, he filed application before the S.D.O. with the prayer for putting him in possession. The S.D.O. passed final order directing the college authority to hand over the possession to the 6th respondent, appellant herein, by evicting the petitioner, 5th respondent herein. 3. Challenging the same, the petitioner-respondent filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau and the same was dismissed on the ground it was not maintainable. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner-respondent came before this Court by filing a writ petition. The learned Single Judge held that the S.D.O. has no jurisdiction to pass order in the matter and directed the college to hand over the possession in favour of the petitioner-respondent. This is under the challenge before this Court in L.P.A. 4. As Indicated above, the learned Counsel for the appellant would cite several authorities reported in AIR2002SC206 (State of Bihar v. Jain Plastic & Chemicals Ltd.) and 1984 B.B.C.J. 615 (Registrar, High Court of Judicature at Patna v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate). We have heard counsel for the parties and gave our anxious consideration to the rival contention. 5. The records would reveal that the 6th respondent, appellant herein, was granted lease of a shop by the college authority originally. We have heard counsel for the parties and gave our anxious consideration to the rival contention. 5. The records would reveal that the 6th respondent, appellant herein, was granted lease of a shop by the college authority originally. When he became defaulter, on the expiry of the period of lease, the shop was allotted to the writ petitioner-respondent. Admittedly, the petitioner-respondent came into possession as a tenant and has been paying rent from 15.02.2000 onwards. Thereafter, the appellant approached the college and prepared to pay the entire arrears of rent and thereupon settlement was made in favour of the appellant and consequently the allotment order, which was passed in favour of the petitioner-respondent, was cancelled. On the basis of such cancellation the appellant filed Misc. Case No. 1 of 2002-03 before the S.D.O. for direction to the college to hand over possession of the shop to him. On the basis of the said application the S.D.O directed the college to get the shop vacated from the petitioner-respondent and hand it over to the 6th respondent, appellant herein, on the ground that allotment made in favour of the petitioner-respondent was cancelled by the college. 6. Mr. Bhowmick, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the appellant though would submit that the S.D.O. has got jurisdiction more in the capacity of the Chairman of the Governing Body of the college to cancel the allotment, the reasoning of the order which has been given in the order of the S.D.O. would not show that he has passed the order as the Chairman of the Governing Body of the College. But, on the other hand, the said order has been passed by the S.D.O. in the capacity of the officer of the Government. Admittedly, the property is in possession of the college. The dispute is in between the college and the parties concerned. 7. Hence the 6th respondent, for executing the order of cancellation, must have either approached the college authorities or filed a suit, as pointed out by the learned Single Judge. This was not done. On the other hand, he had chosen to file application before the S.D.O. for executing the order passed by the college. No provision has been shown by the counsel for the appellant as to how the S.D.O. has got jurisdiction to pass order for executing the order of cancellation of allotment passed by the college. 8. This was not done. On the other hand, he had chosen to file application before the S.D.O. for executing the order passed by the college. No provision has been shown by the counsel for the appellant as to how the S.D.O. has got jurisdiction to pass order for executing the order of cancellation of allotment passed by the college. 8. As a matter of fact, it is noticed that the final order which has been passed on 28.06.2003 by the S.D.O has been stayed by this Court during the pendency of the writ petition. As such the order of the S.D.O has never been implemented. On the other hand, final order passed by the learned Single Judge has been given effect to. Admittedly the petitioner in the writ petition is In possession now. 9. The decisions cited above by the counsel appearing for the appellant would have no relevance to the facts of the case because we are only concerned with the jurisdiction of the S.D.O. who passed the order of cancellation of allotment in favour of the petitioner-respondent where the order of S.D.O. suffers from lack of jurisdiction. 10. Consequently, the possession shall be directed to be handed over to the petitioner-respondent by the college. That is what the' learned Single Judge ordered. The order of the learned Single Judge is perfectly valid. We find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.