Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 953 (JHR)

Nancy Tudu v. State of Jharkhand

2012-07-09

P.P.BHATT

body2012
ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 14.9.2011 (Annexure-9) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Godda in Settlement Cancellation Case No. 11/2011-12, whereby, the settlement of land made in the Settlement Case No. 145/71-72 has been cancelled and Circle Officer, Godda has been directed to make necessary correction in Register II and it has further been directed to take over the possession of the land in question. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of provision of Section 32 and 33 of the SPT Act 1949, the competent authority to decide this issue is the Deputy Commissioner and the impugned order has been passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and the order impugned is without jurisdiction and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition. 4. As against this, learned counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner has also approached the appellate authority under Section 57 of the Act and therefore the present writ petition is not maintainable. 5. Considering the aforesaid rival submission and on perusal of the record, it appears that the present petition has been preferred against the order dated 14.9.2011 (Annexure-9) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Godda in Settlement Cancellation Case No. 11/2011-12, whereby, the settlement of land made in Settlement Case No. 145/71-72 has been cancelled and Circle Officer, Godda has been directed to make necessary correction in Register II. It also appears that against the impugned order, an appeal has been preferred before the appellant authority under Section 57 of the Act and therefore, this court is of the view that since the alternative efficacious remedy is available writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable and therefore, this petition deserves to be rejected. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is rejected. 7. Since the authority concerned has been directed by the Sub Divisional Officer to take over the possession, it is desirable that the appellate authority shall consider the question with regard to grant of interim relief on the basis of merit of the case, during the pendency of the appeal or in the alternatively, appeal preferred under Section 57 of the Act, shall be heard and decided expeditiously.