Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 9 (PAT)

Sanjeev Gupta @ Guddu Gupta v. State of Bihar

2013-01-07

RAKESH KUMAR

body2013
ORDER 1. Heard Sri Shrawan Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel no.9. 2. The petitioners, while invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court, have prayed for quashing of interim orders dated 16.03.2012(Annexure-3) and 09.08.2012 (Annexure4), whereby the Respondent no.2/ the Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa in Land Dispute Appeal No.40/2012 has restrained the parties from making any construction work over the disputed land. The appeal was preferred by Respondent no.4 before the Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa against order dated 01.02.2012 (Annexure-2) in Land Dispute Case No.195 of 2011. 3. The order by the Dy. Collector Land Reforms in Land Dispute Case No.195 of 2011 was passed in favour of the petitioners. The said order was assailed by Respondent no.4 in Land Dispute Appeal no.40 of 2012, which was admitted for hearing on 16.03.2012 and further the court had directed for stay of further action. Lower court record was called for. Notice was also directed to issue. From order dated 09.08.2012, it appears that the dispute arose in between learned counsel for both the parties regarding construction over the land in question. The Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa on 09.08.2012 clarified and directed for staying construction work over the disputed land and fixed the case to 23.08.2012. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in view of Section-14 of the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act,2009 ( hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), the Commissioner i.e. the Appellate Authority has got no jurisdiction to pass an interim order. He submits that in appeal, the Commissioner i.e. the Appellate Authority was required to decide the issue. He further submits that in appeal, the petitioners have already appeared and filed their reply and pleading is complete. He submits that once the pleading is complete and matter was heard on merit, learned Commissioner was not authorized to pass interim order. On this ground alone, he has prayed for setting aside the said order. Sri Anjani Kumar Sinha, learned Standing Counsel no.9 submits that once the Commissioner was having authority to hear and decide the issue, automatically he was also having jurisdiction to pass interim order. He submits that since the appeal is already pending before the Commissioner, the interim order passed by the learned Commissioner may not be interfered with. Sri Anjani Kumar Sinha, learned Standing Counsel no.9 submits that once the Commissioner was having authority to hear and decide the issue, automatically he was also having jurisdiction to pass interim order. He submits that since the appeal is already pending before the Commissioner, the interim order passed by the learned Commissioner may not be interfered with. Besides hearing learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and State and without issuance of notice to the private Respondent, the Court is of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of at this stage. So far jurisdiction of the appellate authority is concerned, no provision of the Act restricts the appellate authority from passing an interim order. Moreover, this situation has been clarified by Rule-25 of the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Rules, 2010, which speaks for passing of an interim order by the appellate authority. 5. Without taking aid of the Rule, this Court is of the opinion that once the court has got jurisdiction to finally adjudicate on an issue, inherently the court possesses the power to pass an interim order and, as such, the prayer of the petitioners for setting aside an interim order passed by the appellate authority during the pendency of the appeal cannot be interfered with by this Court. Since the appeal is already pending before the Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa, no order is required to be passed on interim order of stay passed by the Commissioner. However, after noticing the submission made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that in the appeal before the court below pleadings is complete, the present writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the Respondent no.2/ the Commissioner, Koshi Divisions, Saharsa to take steps for expeditious disposal of Land Dispute Appeal no.40/2012 preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. It is made clear that any observation of this Court may not prejudice the learned Commissioner in deciding the issue.