Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1389 (JHR)

Prabha Minz v. State of Jharkhand

2012-09-13

P.P.BHATT

body2012
ORDER The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 07.05.2008 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in Mutation Revision Case No. 67 (R) 15 of 2007-08 (Annexure-3) by which the learned Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi has disposed of the Revision application filed by the Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 without any notice and knowledge of the petitioner and modified the order passed by the D.C.L.R., Sadar, Ranchi in Mutation Appeal No. 17 R 15 of 2007-08. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the private Respondents and the Respondent-State. 3. Perused the impugned order and other papers annexed to the petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi has passed the impugned order without following the due process of law as envisaged under Section 16 of the Bihar Tenant's Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. The learned counsel for the petitioner by referring the impugned order, pointed out that no such opportunity was ever afforded to the present petitioner and therefore, only on this ground, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. 5. As against that, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents tried to justify the order passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and submitted that the learned Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi has passed just and legal order and intervention of this Court is not required. 6. Considering the aforesaid rival submissions and on perusal of the impugned order and other papers annexed to the petition, it transpires that the learned Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi has passed the impugned order in Mutation Revision Case No. 67 (R) 15 of 2007-08 without affording an opportunity of being heard to the present petitioner, which is required under Section 16 of the Bihar Tenant's Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. 7. Section 16 of the Act provides as under:- “16. Revision. 7. Section 16 of the Act provides as under:- “16. Revision. ---The Collector of the district may, on an application made to him in this behalf or for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any order made under this Act or the rules made thereunder by any authority or officer call for and examine the record of any case pending before or disposed of by such authority or Officer and pass such order as he thinks fit : Provided that the Collector shall not entertain any application from any person, aggrieved by any order, unless it is made within thirty days from the date of the order; Provided further that no order modifying, altering, or setting aside, any order made by such authority or officer shall be passed by the Collector unless the parties concerned have been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.” 8. In view of the proviso of the aforesaid provision, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi was required to give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties to the proceedings. It reflects from the material on record that no such opportunity was ever afforded to the present petitioner and therefore, on this ground alone, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 07.05.2008 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in Mutation Revision Case No. 67 (R) 15 of 2007-08 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi for de novo hearing of the Revision application. 9. This writ petition is allowed accordingly. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner requested that the Revisional authority may be directed to hear and decide the Revision application expeditiously and preferably within a period of two to three months. It appears that the Revision application is of the year 2008 and therefore, the learned Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi shall give priority to this case and decide the same in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order. Petition allowed.