Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 209 (JHR)

Saroj Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2018-01-25

ANUBHA RAWAT CHAUDHARY

body2018
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. D.K. Prasad, counsel for the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Rohit Roy, J.C. to S.C.-IV counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 3. No one appears on behalf of the private respondent no. 5. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that on 10.2.2011 notices were issued upon the respondent no. 5 to be served by personal service which was made returnable on 25.2.2011. On 25.2.2011, the matter was directed to be posted on 4.3.2011. Thereafter, the matter was taken up on 4th March, 2011 and in order dated 4.3.2011 in paragraph no. 1 it has been observed that: "In pursuance of the order, passed by this Court dated 10th February, 2011, notice was issued upon respondent no. 5 to be served by personal service, but, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that when the petitioners approached respondent no. 5 to serve the notice of this Court, respondent no. 5 refused to accept the notice and to that effect counsel for the petitioners has filed an affidavit on 1st March, 2011." However considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court vide order dated 4th March, 2011 admitted the case for final hearing and stayed the implementation and execution of order passedirl S.AR. Revision• Case No. 16 of 2010 dated 31st May, 2010, passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi during pendency and final disposal of this writ petition. 5. This writ application has been filed for the following reliefs : – (a). For quashing the order dated 26.11.2007, passed by the Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation, Ranchi in S.A.R. Case No. 432 of 04-05 as contained in Annexure-15 to the writ petition. (b). For quashing the order dated 10.2.2010, passed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi in S.A.R. Appeal No. 01 R 15/08-09 as contained in Annexure-16 to the writ petition. (c). For quashing the order dated 31.5.2010 passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi (respondent no. 2) in S.A.R. Revision Case No. 16 of 2010 as contained in Annexure-17 to the writ petition. 6. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that originally Budhava Oraon was the owner of the property in question, who sold it to Ram Lakhan Sahu in the year, 1945 by registered sale deed. Thereafter, the property was transferred to Manju Singh in the year 1989 again by registered sale deed from Ram Lakhan Sahu. 6. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that originally Budhava Oraon was the owner of the property in question, who sold it to Ram Lakhan Sahu in the year, 1945 by registered sale deed. Thereafter, the property was transferred to Manju Singh in the year 1989 again by registered sale deed from Ram Lakhan Sahu. Thereafter, in the year, 1996, Manju Sinha transferred the property in question, by registered sale deed to Yugal Kishore Prasad. In the year, 2004-05 again by registered sale deed the property was transferred from Yugal Kishore Prasad to petitioner no. 1 i.e., Saroj Devi. It also appears from the facts of the case that there was one Title Suit No. 887 of 1965 instituted by Ram Lakhan Sahu against Budhava Oraon and their legal heirs. The said Title Suit was decreed on 6th January, 1966 in favour of Ram Lakhan Sahu. Thus, the property was transferred from Budhava Oraon to Ram Lakhan Sahu in the year, 1945 and the transfer of the property from Budhava Oraon to Ram Lakhan Sahu was approved by the concerned court by judgment and decree dated 6th January, 1966 in Title Suit No. 887 of 1965. It is also submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that after long lapse of time in the year 2004-2005, an application was preferred by respondent no. 5 under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act for possession of the property. It is submitted that this is absolutely time barred application and the fact that the petitioners and their predecessors in title were not in possession of the suit property intermittently from Budhava Oraon and their legal heirs since 1945 onwards, has not been properly appreciated either by the Special Officer or by the Additional Collector or by the Commissioner. 7. Counsel for the petitioner submits that instead of entering into the merits of the case he is confining his argument to the illegality committed by the authority as is apparent from Annexure-17 of the writ petition (impugned order) and as pointed out in paras 22, 23 and 24 of the writ petition which are quoted hereinbelow for ready reference: "22. That the petitioners prefer a revision before the Court of Respondent No.2, vide Ranchi SAR. That the petitioners prefer a revision before the Court of Respondent No.2, vide Ranchi SAR. Revision No. 16/2010 who by terms of order dated 31.5.2010 dismissed the said revision in limine at admission stage itself by a non-speaking order and without considering the materials on record and the case laws filed in behalf of the petitioner. 23. That it is to state and submit that the said impugned orders are cryptic non-speaking unreasoned, illegal being contrary to materials on record and as such not sustainable in the eye of law. 24. That the impugned order aforementioned and contained in Annexures-15 to 17 are in direct conflict with the rulings reported in 2004(2) JLJR at page 253, Chaitu Oraon and Others VS. The State of Jharkhand, AIR 2000 S.C. 2276 , Jai Mangal Oraon vs. Smt. Mira Nayak and Others and therefore the impugned orders are fit to be quashed by this Hon'ble Court." 8. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the last impugned order dated 31.5.2010 (Annexure-17) is cryptic, unreasoned, perverse and non-speaking order contrary to the materials on record and as such the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. He while referring to the impugned order further submits that the order passed by the learned Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division does not deal with the various contentions raised by the petitioner. 9. Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has lost before all the three authorities and there is no perversity in the impugned orders, therefore, the impugned orders need not be interfered in writ jurisdiction. 10. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after going through the last impugned order dated 31.5.2010 passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi (respondent no. 2) in S.A.R. Revision Case No. 16 of 2010 as contained in Annexure-17 to the writ petition, this court finds that the issue involved in this case including the point of limitation has not been taken care of by the respondent no. 2 and the order is a non-speaking, cryptic order passed in a mechanical manner. The impugned order dated 31.5.2010 is quoted hereinbelow for ready reference :– “Heard, perused the orders passed by the Courts below and the papers on record. The petitioners are claiming the land on the basis of a collusive title suit and have come into possession over the land fraudulently. The impugned order dated 31.5.2010 is quoted hereinbelow for ready reference :– “Heard, perused the orders passed by the Courts below and the papers on record. The petitioners are claiming the land on the basis of a collusive title suit and have come into possession over the land fraudulently. Thus, it is a clear-cut violation of the provisions of C.N.T. Act to seize tribal land illegally and thus the order passed by the Court below is just and as per law and needs no interference. Hence, the petition is rejected at the admission stage itself as no, new evidence is likely to come up before this Court." 11. Considering this aspect of the matter impugned order dated 31.5.2010 passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi (respondent no. 2) in S.A.R. Revision Case No. 16 of 2010 as contained in Annexure-17, this court is inclined to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi (respondent no. 2) with a direction to pass fresh speaking order after hearing the parties and considering the materials on record as well as the judgments that may be relied upon by the parties in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months. 12. At this stage Counsel for the petitioner submits that his client would appear before the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division on the date as may be fixed by this Court. To this, counsel appearing for the respondent-State does not have any objection. 13. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the order dated 31.5.2010 passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi (respondent no. 2) in SAR. Revision Case No. 16 of 2010 as contained in Annexure-17 to the writ petition is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is. directed to appear before the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur, Division, Ranchi in the 4th week of February 2018 and thereafter the learned Commissioner may issue notice upon the private parties and after hearing the parties pass fresh and reasoned order in accordance with law after considering• the materials available on record and the various judgments which may be relied upon by the petitioner. The South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi shall decide the matter expeditiously preferable within a period of three months thereafter. 14. The writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid observations and direction. 15. The South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi shall decide the matter expeditiously preferable within a period of three months thereafter. 14. The writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid observations and direction. 15. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case.