Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 288 (JHR)

Pramod Kumar Pandey v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-02-02

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

body2018
JUDGMENT Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. – Heard Mr. Jaishankar Tiwari, counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ashish Kr. Thakur, J.C. to S.C. (L&C) for the respondents-state. No one appears on behalf of respondent no. 5 in spite of valid service of notice upon the said respondent. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for the following reliefs:- (a) For issuance of direction upon the respondents for quashing the order dated 17.01.2009, passed by Special Officer, S.A.R., Ranchi in S.A.R. Case No. 481/06-07, whereby ignoring the fact that the land in question was converted to Chhapparbandi in the year 1934 and as such the provisions of Section 71 A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act does not apply, the learned court below mechanically and without jurisdiction passed an order directing to proceed in S.A.R. Case No. 481/06-07 against the petitioners. (b) Further prayer has been made for quashing of entire proceeding arising out of S.A.R. Case No. 481/06-07 considering the fact that the proceeding under Section 71A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act is not applicable in the instant case, as the land in question was converted into Chhaparbandi land in the year 1934 and also considering the fact that the Ranchi Circle has been excluded from Schedule Area ,as such, Section 71 A of the C.N.T. Act which was inserted vide Schedule Area Regulation, 1969 has got no application and also considering the fact that Section 1(2) of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act does not apply in Corporation as Ranchi Municipality was converted as Corporation under the Bihar Municipal Corporation Act, 1978 vide Notification dated 05.09.1979. 3. At the outset, it is submitted by counsel for the respondents that the issue involved in this case has to be first adjudicated by the concerned authority, i.e. Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi and the issue involved in this case is mixed question of fact and law which cannot be decided in the writ jurisdiction. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents and it is stated at paragraph no. 9 and 10 that the matter is pending for evidence and no final order has been passed in this case. However, he submits that present status of the matter is not known to the parties. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents and it is stated at paragraph no. 9 and 10 that the matter is pending for evidence and no final order has been passed in this case. However, he submits that present status of the matter is not known to the parties. 4. In view of the facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this writ application, as mixed question of fact and law is involved in this case which require proper evidence. If the Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi has not passed final order in the matter so far, Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi is directed to proceed with the matter and pass reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid observation/direction.