Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1072 (JHR)

Mukund Lal Chhabra v. State of Jharkhand

2010-12-13

BHAGWATI PRASAD, DHIRUBHAI NARANBHAI PATEL

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. The Petitioner No. 1-Dubraj Ram in W.P.(C) No. 4113 of 2001 is said to be dead. His legal representatives-Hari Nath Ram and Sri Nath Ram have filed one Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 4293 of 2010 for substituting their names in place of the deceased Petitioner No. 1-Dubraj Ram. 2. The aforesaid application has not been opposed by the Respondents. Therefore, the legal representatives of the deceased Petitioner No. 1 in W.P.(C) No. 4113 of 2001, namely, Hari Nath Ram and Sri Nath Ram are brought on record. 3. The issue involved in all these cases being common, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. These present litigations have a kind of history which is full of confusion. Even before this Court, both the parties were asked to give their proposal to compromise, which are though given but due to divergent attitude, compromise is not considered feasible. 5. When the merits of the cases were Inquired into, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Circle Officer held that unless the title suit is filed in the Civil Court the same cannot be proceeded. Against that order, CWJC No. 1884 of 1998(R) was filed before the then Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench, wherein vide order dated 15.9.1999 the learned Single Judge held that the order of the Circle Officer became final and no further proceedings, devoid of the direction of that of the Circle Officer, can be assailed. 6. It is interesting to note that against the order of the Circle Officer, proceeding was initiated before the Deputy Commissioner where the Petitioners joined the issue. Though the matter was not taken up before the Deputy Commissioner within the prescribed limitation, since the Petitioners joined issue before the Deputy Commissioner, it can be considered that the limitation was not pressed into service by the Petitioners themselves and by conduct they waived their right of limitation. Therefore, the question of limitation would not be of that importance. However, the order of the Deputy Commissioner proceeds on certain presumption and compromise as offered by the parties. Which are disputed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Therefore, the question of limitation would not be of that importance. However, the order of the Deputy Commissioner proceeds on certain presumption and compromise as offered by the parties. Which are disputed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Since the whole issue is very confusing because the claim of the Petitioners are that they have perfected their title by adverse possession but the fact remains that the finding of the Deputy Commissioner is that the Petitioners have been paying rent. Once this kind of situation obtains on record and if actually the Petitioners have been found paying rent then there is no question of any adverse possession having vested in the Petitioners because then the possession becomes permissive. But all these findings cannot be given by ordering in these writ petitions because there is no sufficient materials available on record. 7. In that view of the matter, we set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner and remit the matters back for a fresh adjudication by the Deputy Commissioner, who will look into the materials which are already on his record and to be freshly filed by the parties to establish their respective cases and the Deputy Commissioner will adjudicate the matter afresh. As we have noticed that the Petitioners are not agreeable for compromise, no such attempt will be made by him in that direction because that will unnecessarily delay the adjudication of the cases. As this is a question of settlement of market, if at all, the things have to be proceeded, they should be proceeded expeditiously, so as to conclude within three months. 8. In the result, the order of the Deputy Commissioner is set aside. The appeals, so filed by the Petitioners, will be decided on merits. The question of limitation will not be now considered as the parties have joined the issues before the Deputy Commissioner earlier. The parties will be at liberty to file any submissions/ documents which they consider necessary for adjudication in their favour.