Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 439 (JHR)

Pramila Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2015-04-07

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2015
ORDER : I.A. No. 2292 of 2014 This application has been filed seeking substitution of the petitioner namely, Mewa Lal Jaiswal who died on 17.02.2014 leaving behind his wife, two sons and two daughters. The application seeking substitution is allowed. Let necessary correction be carried out. W.P.(C) No. 4836 of 2013 Challenging notice dated 22.09.2011 and order dated 13.07.2013 in Miscellaneous Certificate No. 26 of 199293, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The original petitioner purchased Putrar Coppice Coup No. 7 in the year, 197778 for a sum of Rs. 1,51,000/- for which security deposit of Rs. 15,100/- was furnished by him. A requisition for realising a sum of Rs. 33,900/was sent by the Divisional Forest Officer, Latehar on 19.09.1992 whereupon, the Certificate Officer issued notice to the deceased petitioner on 25.09.1992. The deceased petitioner filed reply dated 16.11.1992 in Miscellaneous Certificate No. 26 of 199293 denying his liability to pay Rs. 33,900/however, the objection filed by the deceased petitioner was not decided and the matter remained pending for about 20 years. Suddenly, letter dated 22.09.2011 for realising a sum of Rs. 1,75,589/- besides, cost of Rs. 4.25/p was issued in Miscellaneous Certificate No. 26 of 199293. The deceased petitioner filed an application on 19.10.2011 whereupon, the Certificate Officer directed the certificate holder to file relevant documents which however, were not filed by the certificate holder. In the meantime, the deceased petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1095 of 2013 which was disposed of vide order dated 23.04.2013 directing the Certificate Officer to proceed in accordance with law, after considering the objection filed by the deceased petitioner. The deceased petitioner though produced a copy of order passed in W.P.(C) No. 1095 of 2013, without any notice to the deceased petitioner the certificate case was disposed of vide order dated 13.07.2013. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the matters arising out of a contract, in which no liquidated damage has been fixed, the certificate proceeding cannot be instituted for realising the alleged loss of Rs. 33,900/. It is further submitted that after the security deposit of 15,100/- was forfeited and Putrar Coppice Coup No. 7 in Plot No. 83 was further auctioned, the alleged damage cannot be recovered from the deceased petitioner. As against the above, the learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand submits that the deceased petitioner purchased Coup for Rs. 33,900/. It is further submitted that after the security deposit of 15,100/- was forfeited and Putrar Coppice Coup No. 7 in Plot No. 83 was further auctioned, the alleged damage cannot be recovered from the deceased petitioner. As against the above, the learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand submits that the deceased petitioner purchased Coup for Rs. 1,51,000/- and since he did not exploit the Coup, the department suffered revenue loss of Rs. 33,900/ and therefore, the certificate case was instituted. 4. A perusal of order dated 13.07.2013 would indicate that the certificate case has been disposed of without hearing the deceased petitioner and without considering the objection filed by him. In W.P.(C) No. 1095 of 2013, this Court directed the Certificate Officer to consider the objection filed by the deceased petitioner for arriving at final determination of the liability of the deceased petitioner. It further appears that on the allegation that the deceased petitioner did not exploit the Coup, the security deposit of Rs. 15,100/was forfeited. In the year, 197879, the Putrar Coppice Coup No. 7 was auctioned for Rs. 1,02,000/- and for the year, 197980 it was auctioned for Rs. 91,800/. The Certificate Officer has calculated revenue loss by deducting the amount of security deposit for the auction held in the year, 97778 and 197879 and the total amount for which the Putrar Coppice Coup No. 7 was auctioned for the year, 197980 from Rs. 1,51,000/- for which Putrar Coppice Coup No. 7 was auctioned for the year, 197778. It is mentioned in order dated 13.07.2013 that for the year, 197980, Coup was auctioned for Rs. 91,800/- and the purchaser exploited the Coup. The case remained pending for more than 20 years and interest of Rs. 87,462/has been added on the revenue loss of Rs. 33,900/. The total liability is thus, calculated at Rs. 1,21,362/. The procedure adopted by the Certificate Officer is absolutely illegal. Once the security deposit of Rs. 15,100/- has been forfeited and the Coup was fully exploited by one Harjit Singh who purchased Coup for Rs. 91,800/, for quantifying the loss allegedly sustained by the department, the department was required to approach the Civil Court and on its own it could not have assessed the alleged loss. The proceeding in Miscellaneous Certificate No. 26 of 199293 was thus, without jurisdiction. 5. 91,800/, for quantifying the loss allegedly sustained by the department, the department was required to approach the Civil Court and on its own it could not have assessed the alleged loss. The proceeding in Miscellaneous Certificate No. 26 of 199293 was thus, without jurisdiction. 5. Considering the above facts, order dated 13.07.2013 is hereby quashed and the writ petition stands allowed.