Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 562 (JHR)

Md. Mokhtar Hussain v. State of Jharkhand

2008-05-16

N.N.TIWARI

body2008
Order While hearing IA. No.1341 of 2008 filed by the writ petitioner, learned counsel appearing in the writ petition as well as in the interlocutory applications, which have been filed by the persons, who want to intervene in the matter and to be added as parties to the writ petition, agreed that the writ petition as well as interlocutory applications can be heard together and disposed of at this stage itself. With their consent and as agreed by them, all the said cases have been taken up together and the same are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In the writ petition [W.P.(C) No. 1341 of 2007], the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to constitute an enquiry with a view to assess the actual potential of two Ferry Ghats, namely, Udhwa Ferry Ghat and Fudkipur Ferry Ghat, which fall within Udhwa Block in the district of Sahebganj. 3. It has been stated that the said Ghats became useless for ferry purposes because of the construction of bridge over river near by the Fudkipur Ferry Ghat and Udhwa Ferry Ghat. After the construction of the bridge and construction of the connecting road, the people now preferred to cross the river by road and the passengers are admittedly interested to ferry service through the said Ferry Ghats. Under the said circumstance, the petitioner, who was a settled of the said Ghats, is entitled for consideration for remission and reserve Jama. 4. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to allow him to surrender the said two Ferry Ghats for putting the same on fresh bid and to allow remission of the petitioner's claim for the years 2006-07 and 2007-08. 5. It has been stated that the petitioner is a registered self-supported cooperative society. Three Ferry Ghats, namely, Radhanagar Begumganj Ferry Ghat, Udhwa Ferry Ghat and Fudkipur Ferry Ghat were settled in favour of the petitioner for the years 2006-07 to 2008- 09 by Memo No. 331 dated 31st March, 2006 issued by the Additional Collector, Sahebganj. Due .to the construction of bridge and connecting road, when the petitioner was not getting passenger for Udhwa Ferry Ghat and Fudkipur Ferry Ghat, he filed a representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj to make enquiry and grant remission. However, the said. representation was not considered. The petitioner, thereafter, filed this writ petition, seeking direction, as aforesaid. 6. Due .to the construction of bridge and connecting road, when the petitioner was not getting passenger for Udhwa Ferry Ghat and Fudkipur Ferry Ghat, he filed a representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj to make enquiry and grant remission. However, the said. representation was not considered. The petitioner, thereafter, filed this writ petition, seeking direction, as aforesaid. 6. During the pendency of the writ petition, I.A. No. 1877 of 2007 was filed by one Udhwa Prakhand Stariya Nav Yatayat Swablambi Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Pyarpur, claiming that they are registered co-operative society and they are entitled to get settlement of the said Ferry Ghats and their presence is also necessary in the instant writ petition. 7. Another interlocutory application, being IA. No. 2744 of 2007, was filed by one Amar Kumar Ghosh, who happens to be the Secretary of Barharwa Prakhand, Boat Traffic Sahyog Samiti Ltd., Thoparam, seeking his addition as intervener on the ground that in the meanwhile the settlement of concerned Ghats has been made in his favour and that he is an interested party and his presence is necessary in the instant writ petition for consideration and adjudication of the controversies. 8. In IA. No. 1008 of 2008, said Amar Kumar Ghosh has sought a direction that the settlement of said three Ghats should be made in his favour in new financial year, as the petitioner has defaulted in payment of instalment of the amount. 9. iA. No. 1341 of 2008 has been filed by the writ petitioner, whereby he has sought addition of a prayer in the writ petition and for bringing on record the subsequent event i.e. alleged settlement made in favour of Amar Kumar Ghosh and for quashing the order dated 12th April, 2008 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj, whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit Rs.4,70,408/- as due up to 2007-08 with warning that if the same is not deposited, the settlement shall be deemed to be cancelled. 10. Learned counsel appearing in the said cases argued in support of their respective claims. Out of the contentions made on behalf of the parties, several issues on factual dispute arose in the instant case. Such issues cannot be adjudicated upon and decided in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 11. 10. Learned counsel appearing in the said cases argued in support of their respective claims. Out of the contentions made on behalf of the parties, several issues on factual dispute arose in the instant case. Such issues cannot be adjudicated upon and decided in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 11. In view of the order hereafter proposed, the details of the argument and facts stated in the writ petition/interlocutory applications as also the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been avoided. The parties agreed that their respective claims/grievances are to be heard and decided by the concerned authorities on the basis of the records available in the department. According to them, 'the Divisional Commissioner, who is the head of revenue in Division, is the competent authority to deal with the matter and decide the controversy between the parties. 12. Since the writ petitioner has challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner, it is also desirable in that view that the Commissioner of the Division should hear the grievance/claim of the petitioner as well as interveners and all concerned and take decision in accordance with law. 13. This writ petition and interlocutory applications are, thus, disposed of, giving liberty to the parties and others to appear before the Commissioner, Santhal Parganas Division, and put their respective claim(s) in writing on 17th June, 2008 along-with a copy of this order. The learned Commissioner on receipt of such representation shall fix a date of hearing of the matter. The learned Commissioner may also call for the relevant records, if the documents are not placed before him sufficiently for taking any final decision. Either on the date fixed or any other date fixed by him for that purpose the concerned parties shall appear and represent their cases. The learned Commissioner shall afford proper opportunity of hearing and representation to them and, thereafter, shall dispose of the matter by a reasoned order in accordance with law.