Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1232 (JHR)

Sudhir Kumar Sadhu Khan v. State of Jharkhand

2014-12-11

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2014
Order Seeking quashing of order dated 26.06.2012 in Revenue Misc. Case No. 03 of 2011-12, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, in the proceeding under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, the petitioners were allowed 3 units vide order dated 14.04.1978 by order of the Deputy Collector, Land and Ceiling. The petitioners moved an application before the Circle Officer for mutation of their names, in which notices were issued. Later on it transpired that the respondent no. 6 filed an application before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, for mutation of their names in the Revenue Record. The petitioners also preferred objection before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms in the application filed by the respondent no. 6 however, vide order dated 11.07.1997, the learned Deputy Collector Land Reforms allowed the application filed by the respondent no. 6. The petitioners preferred appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 02.12.1997 by the Additional Collector and the revision preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed as not maintainable vide order dated 10.04.2002. Aggrieved, the mother of the petitioners approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4040 of 2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 12.02.2007 observing that the dispute between the parties would be decided by the Civil Court on the basis of materials on record. Vide order dated 10.09.2007 in L.P.A. No. 134 of 2007, the order passed by the Writ Court was affirmed and the L.P.A. was disposed of. It appears that the respondent no. 6 moved an application in pending suit being T.S. No. 07 of 1997 seeking permission of the Court to withdraw the suit vide order dated 17.11.2011 and the respondent no. 6 was permitted to withdraw the suit. Thereafter, the petitioners approached the Deputy Collector Land Reforms by filing an application with the prayer for removing the name of the respondent no. 6 from the Register-II and for entering their name in the Revenue Record. The application filed by the petitioners has been dismissed vide order dated 26.06.2012 and therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 4. 6 from the Register-II and for entering their name in the Revenue Record. The application filed by the petitioners has been dismissed vide order dated 26.06.2012 and therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the order passed by the Revisional Authority dated 10.04.2002 holding the petition of the petitioners as not maintainable, is apparently erroneous. This Court in W.P.(C) No. 4040 of 2002 and L.P.A. No. 134 of 2007 has not adjudicated the merits of the case and the writ petition as well as the L.P.A. were disposed of summarily and thus, the order passed by the learned Deputy Collector, Land Reforms dated 11.07.1997 is the only order whereby the rights of the parties have been adjudicated on merits and therefore, the petitioners moved the application before the said authority for removing the name of the respondent no. 6 from Register-II. It is further submitted that since there is no adjudication on merits by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4040 of 2002 which was affirmed by the order dated 10.09.2007 in L.P.A. No. 134 of 2007, the present writ petition is not barred by of resjudicata. 5. Mr. Md. Shamim Akhtar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 6 raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy to the petitioners. It is further submitted that since no order was impugned before the original authority, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms has rightly dismissed the application vide order dated 26.06.2012. 6. Mr. V.K. Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand also opposed the prayer of the petitioners and submits that since the issues raised in the writ petition involves disputed question of facts, it cannot be adjudicated in the writ proceeding and thus, the writ petition is not maintainable. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 8. From the materials on record, it is apparent that there is no decision the sustainability of the order dated 11.07.1997 passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms. The order passed by the Revisional Authority dated 10.04.2002 appears to be erroneous. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 8. From the materials on record, it is apparent that there is no decision the sustainability of the order dated 11.07.1997 passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms. The order passed by the Revisional Authority dated 10.04.2002 appears to be erroneous. It is also an admitted position that this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4040 of 2002 has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The order passed in W.P.(C) No. 4040 of 2002 has been affirmed by the Letters Patent Court and thus, I am of the opinion that the application filed by the petitioners seeking removal of the name of the respondent no. 6 from Register-II was maintainable. It is a different thing that the petitioners could not labelled their application as one seeking recall of order dated 11.07.1997 however, I am of the opinion that the substance of the petition should have been seen and not the labelling. However, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents since, the petitioners have remedy of revision, it would serve the ends of justice, if the petitioners are granted liberty to approach the Revisional Authority. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Revisional Authority within a period of four weeks. It is expected that the Revisional Authority would decide the revision petition, if any, filed by the petitioners, on the merits, on basis of the materials brought on record. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1130 of 2014 stands disposed of.