Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1402 (JHR)

Subodh Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2015-11-04

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2015
ORDER : On the second call also, the counsel for the petitioner is absent. 2. Aggrieved by order dated 03.07.2003, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. In the proceeding of Tanaza No. 1 of 2002-03, Janaki Singh & Ors. were second party. The Charge Officer after hearing the parties held that there was no partition between the co-sharers however, legal heirs of the recorded raiyats were in possession over their respective shares. The Charge Officer vide order dated 06.03.2003 ordered entry in the land records in terms of possession of the parties. However, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Nawadih felt difficulty in entering the name of the petitioner and other co-sharers in the land records and thus, he reported the matter to the Charge Officer-respondent no. 6. However, in the meantime, in purported exercise of direction issued by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Settlement Officer, Hazaribagh, the Assistant Settlement Officer issued order dated 03.07.2003 annulling the order passed by respondent no. 6. In these facts, the petitioner has pleaded that the Assistant Settlement Officer has no jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the orders passed by the Charge Officer. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand submits that the Settlement Officer is a superior officer in rank and he in exercise of his power of superintendence can issue directions for correcting the errors committed by the subordinate officer. The Settlement Officer, Hazaribagh has passed order on 24.06.2003 and in compliance thereof order dated 03.07.2003 was issued. 5. From the affidavits filed by the parties in the present proceeding, it appears that the revisional survey in a district is conducted in several stages and it begins with Kistwar Khanpuri. If a dispute arises which is called Tanaza it is heard by Khanpuri Officer. Under Rule 30 of the C.N.T. Rules, 1959, the Assistant Settlement Officer is the competent authority to pass orders in the Tanaza cases however, under notification of the Government a Charge Officer can function as Assistant Settlement Officer also. It has been brought on record that in so far as, respondent no. 6 is concerned, no notification authorising him to discharge the function of Assistant Settlement Officer was issued whereas, the respondent no. 4 was given additional responsibility of Charge Officer, Settlement, Hazaribagh vide notification dated 25.06.2003. The respondent no. It has been brought on record that in so far as, respondent no. 6 is concerned, no notification authorising him to discharge the function of Assistant Settlement Officer was issued whereas, the respondent no. 4 was given additional responsibility of Charge Officer, Settlement, Hazaribagh vide notification dated 25.06.2003. The respondent no. 6 who was the Charge Officer has only administrative powers and he cannot decide the dispute during the revisional survey. The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 discloses that the respondent no. 6 without any authority called a large number of cases from several Khanapuri Camps and passed orders as Revenue Court. When this fact came to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Settlement Officer, on his instruction impugned order dated 03.07.2003 was issued. 6. I find no error in the impugned order dated 03.07.2003 and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.