Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1528 (JHR)

Abani Mandal v. State of Jharkhan

2016-11-11

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2016
ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and State. 2. Petitioners have approached this Court on an apprehension of eviction in connection with S.A.R Case no. 23/2011-12 instituted by the private respondents before the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Chandil in relation to certain lands bearing Plot no. 24, Area 1.35 Acres; Plot no. 27 Area 0.90 Acres; Plot no. 32 Area 1.16 Acres and Plot no. 176 Area 0.72 acres totaling 4.13 Acrea in Khata no. 58 of Mouza-Karkidih under Circle Kukru. Petitioners having lost in S.A.R Case no. 23/2011-12 vide order dated 8th August, 2016, have preferred S.A.R Appeal No. 06/201617 before the Court of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Saraikella-Kharswan, respondent no.5 3. Counsel for the petitioners contends that the appeal has been admitted and notices have been issued on the private respondents calling upon Lower Court Records. The private respondents have also appeared there. An application for stay of the order dated 8th August, 2016 passed by S.D.O, Chandil has also been preferred before the Appellate Forum (Annexure3) on 16th September, 2016. Thereafter, though the matter has been taken up on 27th September, 2016, 4th October, 2016 and 18th October, 2016, but no order has been passed on the stay application. In the meantime, petitioners have been served with notice dated 18th October, 2016 on 25th October, 2016 by Circle Officer, Kukru for delivery of possession on 26th October, 2016 (Annexure5 to the supplementary affidavit). However, due to intervention of the local Mukhiya in view of the ensuing deepawali festival delivery of possession could not be effected. However, petitioners apprehending dispossession at any point of time have approached this Court as the Appellate Forum has yet not considered the application for stay moved by them. 4. Counsel for the State has taken an objection to the maintainability of the writ petition for the purposes of an interlocutory order when the petitioners have already preferred an appeal before respondent no. 5, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharswan. It is submitted that the private respondents may also have occasion to object to such a prayer. Therefore, no such protection may be granted at this stage. 5. I have considered the submission of counsel for the petitioners and State in the light of the relevant facts pleaded noted hereinabove. 5, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharswan. It is submitted that the private respondents may also have occasion to object to such a prayer. Therefore, no such protection may be granted at this stage. 5. I have considered the submission of counsel for the petitioners and State in the light of the relevant facts pleaded noted hereinabove. As is apparent, petitioners have already approached the Appellate Forum being aggrieved by the order of S.A.R Court dated 8th August, 2016 and also filed an application for interim stay. It however appears that despite the matter having been taken up on successive dates as per the order-sheet enclosed at Annexure4, no order has been passed on his interim application. In such circumstances, petitioners are directed to approach the respondent no. 5, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharswan and press its interlocutory application within a period of 2 weeks from today on any working day, which would be considered by the respondent no. 5 in accordance with law and after opportunity to the affected parties as well. However, for a period of 2 weeks from today, no coercive steps be taken in respect of execution of the order passed by S.A.R Court, if not already taken against the petitioner. Let it be made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case of the parties, more so when the private respondents have not been heard in the matter. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Petition disposed of.