Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1712 (JHR)

Santosh Bahadur Gurang v. State of Jharkhand

2012-12-11

P.P.BHATT

body2012
ORDER The petitioner by way of filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction directing the respondents specially respondent no.2 for allowing the petitioners an opportunity of hearing in the matter concerning Scheduled Area Regulation Case No. 40 of 1997-1998, as the said proceeding under section 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act is still pending for delivery of possession of land recorded in Revisional Survey plot nos. 305 and 306 and under Khata No. 94 of village Jorar Police Station Namkom District Ranchi in favour of descendants of tenants recorded under said Khata. It is further prayed that only after hearing the petitioners, further proceeding in the said Scheduled Area Regulation case may be carried out. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-State Government. Perused the petition and the documents annexed with the petition as well as the counter affidavit filed by the State Government. 3. On perusal of the same it transpires that the case of the petitioners is that they are in possession of the plots in question and they have not been heard in SAR proceedings initiated under section 71 A of the C.N.T Act. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners by referring Aannexure-6 invited attention of this Court that the petitioners approached the Scheduled Area Regulation Authority vide representation dated 21.2.2009 .The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners by referring paragraph 26 of the petition pointed out that in response to the representation made by the petitioners respondent no.2 informed the petitioner that since his predecessor has passed the order dated 17.8.1999, he is not going to interfere with the said order. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-State Government by referring counter affidavit filed by the said authority pointed out that SAR proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and the relevant parties have been given an opportunity of being heard and thereafter the order was passed by the said authority in accordance with law and therefore, intervention of this court is not needed. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioners were not made parties in the said proceedings and no opportunity was given to put forward their cases. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioners were not made parties in the said proceedings and no opportunity was given to put forward their cases. In this context the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has referred to and relied upon paragraphs no. 18 and 19 of the petition and submitted that real owners were not made parties in the said proceedings. 7. Considering the aforesaid rival submissions and on perusal of the various documents annexed to this petition and more particularly in view of the annexure 6 it transpires that representation was filed before the SAR authority by the petitioners but the reply given by the said authority appears to be evasive and therefore, the said authority is required to be directed to deal with and decide the said representation filed by the petitioners in accordance with law and the petitioners shall be given an opportunity of being heard before passing any final order in this regard. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners apprehends that the respondents-authorities are likely to take further steps in pursuance to the order passed under section 71A of the C.N.T Act and thereby dispossessed the present petitioners from their premises. As the SAR authority has been directed to deal with and decide the said representation filed by the petitioners, till the said representation is considered by the said authority further steps in pursuance to the order passed earlier in SAR Case No. 40 of 1997-1998 shall not be taken without giving notice to the present petitioners. 9. With the aforesaid observations this petition stands disposed of. Petition disposed of.