Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1260 (JHR)

Manga Bando Pahan v. State of Jharkhand

2014-12-15

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2014
Judgment : Aggrieved by notice dated 01.06.2013 issued by the Circle Officer, Namkum whereby, petitioners were directed to handover possession by 06.06.2013 failing which possession would be taken by 07.06.2013, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in SAR Case No. 88/200910 order dated 07.04.2011 whereby, the petitioner was directed to handover possession was passed, against which the petitioner preferred SAR Appeal No. 29 R 15/201112 which was dismissed in default vide order dated 18.06.2012. The petitioner thereafter, preferred an application being Misc. (Re Admission) Case No.14 R 15/201213 dated 20.02.2013 which is pending consideration however, in the meantime, the Circle Officer, Namkum issued notice dated 01.06.2013. It is submitted that if the notice dated 01.06.2013 issued by the Circle Officer, Namkum is given effect, the restoration application preferred by the petitioners, if finally allowed, and the SAR Appeal No. 29 R 15/201112 is restored to its original file, irreparable injury would be caused to the petitioners and therefore, the propriety requires that during the pendency of the restoration application, no order in connection with order dated 07.04.2011 in SAR Case No. 88/200910 should have been issued. 3. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 7 submits that mere pendency of the restoration application cannot be treated as bar for executing order passed in SAR Case No. 88/200910. It is further submitted that even if it is assumed that the restoration application dated 20.02.2013 is allowed and SAR Appeal Case No. 29 R 15/201112 is restored to its original file, till the time order dated 07.04.2011 in SAR Case No. 88 R/200910 is quashed, there is no legal bar in giving effect to order dated 07.04.2011. 4. Mr. V.K. Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State of Jharkhand though opposed the prayer made in the writ petition, fairly submits that during the pendency of the restoration application bearing Misc. (Re Admission) Case No. 14 R 15/201213, the Circle Officer should not have issued notice dated 01.06.2013. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. From the above, I find no dispute in so far as, pendecy of Misc. (Re Admission) Case No. 14 R 15/201213 is concerned. (Re Admission) Case No. 14 R 15/201213, the Circle Officer should not have issued notice dated 01.06.2013. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. From the above, I find no dispute in so far as, pendecy of Misc. (Re Admission) Case No. 14 R 15/201213 is concerned. Order dated 20.02.2013 passed in the present proceeding indicates that the application preferred by the petitioner could not be heard because there was no regular court. During the pendency of the restoration application, the Circle Officer has issued notice dated 01.06.2013 directing the petitioners to vacate the premises in question by 06.06.2013. I find substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that during the pendency of the restoration application, in view of the valuable legal right of the petitioners being affected in the matter, the Circle Officer should not have taken steps for execution of order dated 07.04.2011 in SAR Case No. 88/200910. It is well settled that injunction is also a form of writ and therefore, the prayer in the writ petition seeking a direction for keeping order dated 07.04.2011 at abeyance during the pendency of the restoration application, deserves to be allowed. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition stands allowed and till a decision in the restoration application being Misc. (Re Admission) Case No. 14 R 15/201213 is taken, operation of order dated 07.04.2011 in SAR Case No. 88/200910 shall remain at abeyance.