Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2386 (JHR)

Mangrita Orain wife of Late of Albis Oraon v. State of Bihar, now Jharkhand

2018-10-29

AMITAV K.GUPTA, AMITAV K.GUPTA, D.N.PATEL, D.N.PATEL

body2018
JUDGMENT : D.N. Patel, J. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioners, whose writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.1783 of 1999(R) was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 12th August, 2016 and hence, the original petitioners have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. It appears from the facts of the case that respondent No.5 has preferred an application before the Deputy Collector of Land Reforms, Gumla (hereinafter referred to as 'the DCLR') for restoration of Plot No.165, Khata No.74 situated at Village Mamarla, Police Station – Basia, District Gumla, admeasuring 48 decimals. 3. It appears that the DCLR allowed the application preferred by respondent No.5 vide order dated 30th November, 1993 (Annexure 1), whereby out of total 48 decimals of land, 35.5 decimals of land was restored to respondent No.5, whereas, 12.5 decimals of land was allowed to be retained by these appellants. 4. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the order of the DCLR dated 30th November, 1993, an appeal was preferred by respondent No.5 before the Additional Collector, Gumla being S.A.R. Appeal No.02 of 1994-95 which was allowed by the appellate authority. Thus, remaining 12.5 decimals of land was also restored in favour of respondent No.5. Respondent No.5 had not joined appellant No.1 as party-respondent in S.A.R. Appeal No.02 of 1994-95. Thus, without joining appellant No.1 as party-respondent in the S.A.R. Appeal, order was passed by the Additional Collector for restoration of the land admeasuring 12.5 decimals in favour of respondent No.5. The said land was in possession of this appellant No.1. This is an error apparent on the face of the record, which is not being appreciated by the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition preferred by these appellants being C.W.J.C. No.1783 of 1999(R). 5. Thereafter, the grandson of the recorded tenant preferred Permission Case No.392 of 1992-93 before the DCLR for transfer of the land which was allowed vide order dated 30th May, 1994 (Annexure 3 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal). 6. Against the aforesaid order dated 30th May, 1994, father of respondent No.5 preferred an appeal being Permission Appeal No.01 of 1994-95 and it was dismissed by the Additional Collector, Gumla vide order dated 21st June, 1995 (Annexure 4) and ultimately sale deed was ordered to be registered. The sale deed was registered on 15th June, 1994. 7. 6. Against the aforesaid order dated 30th May, 1994, father of respondent No.5 preferred an appeal being Permission Appeal No.01 of 1994-95 and it was dismissed by the Additional Collector, Gumla vide order dated 21st June, 1995 (Annexure 4) and ultimately sale deed was ordered to be registered. The sale deed was registered on 15th June, 1994. 7. Title Suit No.29 of 1994 was also filed by the father of respondent No.5 in the district of Gumla challenging the transfer of the land and the sale deed which was ultimately withdrawn on 17th April, 1998. 8. Meanwhile, this appellant No.1 preferred a review application before the Additional Collector who had decided S.A.R. Appeal No.02 of 1994-95 vide order dated 14th March, 1996 (Annexure 2), mainly on the ground that this appellant No.1 was not joined as party-respondent in the said S.A.R. Appeal. This review application was allowed vide order dated 24th December, 1997 (Annexure 7) and the order dated 14th March, 1996 (Annexure 2) was quashed and set aside. 9. Against the aforesaid review order dated 24th December, 1997, S.A.R. Revision Application No.07 of 1998 was preferred by respondent No.5 before the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi who allowed the S.A.R. Revision Application vide order dated 14th June, 1999 (Annexure 8), which was challenged by the appellants in the writ petition, being C.W.J.C. No.1783 of 1999(R) and as the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 12th August, 2016, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioners. 10. Thus, looking to the aforesaid aspects of the matter, it appears that out of total 48 decimals of land in hand of these appellants, 35.5 decimals of land was restored by the DCLR, Gumla vide order at Annexure 1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal in favour of respondent No.5. For getting remaining land, which is admeasuring 12.5 decimals, appeal was also preferred by respondent No.5 before the Additional Collector being S.A.R. Appeal No.02 of 1994-95, but, this appellant No.1 was never joined as party-respondent. Without appreciating this aspect of the matter, the appellate authority allowed S.A.R. Appeal No.02 of 1994-95 vide order dated 14th March, 1996 (Annexure 2). For getting remaining land, which is admeasuring 12.5 decimals, appeal was also preferred by respondent No.5 before the Additional Collector being S.A.R. Appeal No.02 of 1994-95, but, this appellant No.1 was never joined as party-respondent. Without appreciating this aspect of the matter, the appellate authority allowed S.A.R. Appeal No.02 of 1994-95 vide order dated 14th March, 1996 (Annexure 2). Thus, a person from whom the possession of the land was to be taken admeasuring 12.5 decimals of land and which was to be given to respondent No.5, that process was done without joining appellant No.1 (possessor of the land). Thus, without joining the necessary party, S.A.R. Appeal No.02 of 1994-95 was allowed. This mistake was corrected in a Review Case preferred by this appellant and the appellate authority quashed and set aside the order dated 14th March, 1996 by another order dated 24th December, 1997 (Annexure 7), but, the revision application preferred by respondent No.5 was allowed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division in S.A.R. Revision No.07 of 1998 preferred by respondent No.5 vide order dated 14th June, 1999 (Annexure 8), without appreciating the fact that S.A.R. Appeal No.02 of 1994-95 cannot be allowed without joining appellant No.1 as party-respondent in the said appeal. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellants being C.W.J.C. No.1783 of 1999(R) vide judgment and order dated 12th August, 2016. 11. We, therefore, quash and set aside the said judgment and order dated 12th August, 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.1783 of 1999(R). We also quash and set aside the judgment and order delivered by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division in S.A.R. (Revision) No.07 of 1998 dated 14th June, 1999 (Annexure 8). We also quash and set aside the order passed by the Additional Collector in S.A.R. Appeal No.02 of 1994-95 dated 14th March, 1996 (Annexure 2) and all the consequential orders in favour of respondent No.5 passed in Permission Case No.392 of 1992-93 delivered on 30th May, 1994 (Annexure 3) as well as the order passed in Permission Appeal No.01 of 1994-95 dated 21st June, 1995 (Annexure 4) and we hereby remand the matter to the DCLR, Gumla to decide afresh the appeal of respondent No.5 wherein this appellant No.1 shall be joined as party-respondent. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Gumla will decide S.A.R. Appeal No.02 of 1994-95 afresh which is pending before the Additional Collector, Gumla in accordance with law and on the basis of the evidence on record. The appellants will be given an adequate opportunity of being heard and they will also be allowed to produce the documentary evidences on record. 12. This Letters Patent Appeal is allowed and disposed of.