Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 596 (JHR)

Lal Mohan Bej v. State of Jharkhand

2017-03-28

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2017
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner's preemption application was registered as L. C. Case No. 28 of 1981-82 before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Seraikella, respondent no. 2, who rejected it vide order dated 14.06.1982, which was the subject matter of the writ petition CWJC No. 95 of 1983(R). Vide judgment dated 06.09.1989, Annexure-3, the learned Division Bench of Patna High Court was pleased to quash the same. Land Reforms Deputy Collector was directed to issue notices to the parties and thereafter proceed to decide the application filed by the petitioner under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 in accordance with law. 3. Petitioner has approached this Court in the year 2015 alleging that the said Land Acquisition Case is still pending, now bearing L. C. Case No. 16/2004-05. Reference is made to the order sheet of the case at Annexure-4, dated 04.05.2005 and 28.06.2005. Perusal thereof shows appearance of the petitioner while no representation on behalf of the Second Party. Service report of notice was not yet obtained. Petitioner was directed vide order dated 15.10.2015 in the present matter to file an affidavit in support of the statement that L. C. Case No. 16/2004-05 was never put up for hearing except of those two dates. No such affidavit has been filed neither order sheet of the said case has been brought on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the office of the respondent no. 2, has not provided certified copy of the order sheet of the said case. Petitioner has approached this Court for a direction upon the respondent no. 2 to decide the Land Ceiling Case one way or other after notice to the affected parties. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that petitioner has not shown enough diligence in prosecuting the matter. He has approached this Court after 26 years of the judgment passed in the writ petition seeking the aforesaid direction. However, no instructions have been furnished to the counsel for the respondent till date. 6. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. He has approached this Court after 26 years of the judgment passed in the writ petition seeking the aforesaid direction. However, no instructions have been furnished to the counsel for the respondent till date. 6. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The background facts show serious laches on the part of the petitioner and unexplained delay in prosecuting the Land Ceiling Case even after being successful before the Learned Division Bench of Patna High Court in CWJC No. 95 of 1983(R). From the array of the parties, it appears that several private respondents, who are the successors of the original purchaser, have been impleaded now. The face of the case and the arena of parties must have also been considerably changed and enlarged by now because of the delay in prosecuting the same. The Statutory Authority, in any case cannot absolve himself of the responsibility to decide litigation pending before it under any such Act including Act of 1961. Apart from that there was direction upon the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Seraikella-Kharsawan also to proceed to decide the matter after notices to the other sides in accordance with law. In that case, in the present matter observations made in CWJC No. 95 of 1983(R) can only be reiterated. Respondent no. 2 in any event should conclude such pending proceedings, if not yet concluded, within a time frame in accordance with law after due notice to the affected parties. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.