Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 772 (JHR)

Dashwa Oraon v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-04-05

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

body2018
ORDER Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - Heard Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, A.C. to S.C. (L&C). 3. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:- "For a direction to the respondents no.4 and 5 for giving delivery of possession over disputed land in S.A.R. Case No.654/05-06 alongwith to issue land rent receipt of R.S. Khatiyan to the petitioner on the ground of C.S. Khatiyan. That after restoring the land of said S.A.R. case relating to Khata No.92, plot - no. - 485 total land 7 dismal, that in this connection, the petitioner approached by filing representation for delivery of possession (Dakhaldani) over disputed land but the respondents are not doing anything and it is also prayed that the petitioner request to issue land rent receipt from the office of C.O. but the concerning authority had not releasing rent receipt in the name of petitioner." 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that vide S.A.R. Case No. 654 of 05-06 final judgment dated 28.04.2008 was passed in favour of the petitioner for restoration of land contained in Mouza - Tiril, Khata No.92, Thana No.-195, Plot No.-435, Area 0.07 acres in case filed by the Dashwa Oraon (petitioner herein) v. Dulari Tirkey under Section 71 A of the Chotanagpur Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. He submits that against this order an appeal being S.A.R. Appeal No. 33 R 15 / 2008-2009 was filed and the appeal was also dismissed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi vide order dated 25.08.2008. Counsel for the petitioner submits that an application for recovery of possession pursuant to the aforesaid order passed in S.A.R Case No. 654 of 2005-06 was filed before the Circle Officer, Ranchi but inspite of such application the possession of the property has not been given to the petitioner and accordingly this writ petition has been filed seeking a direction upon the Circle Officer, Ranchi to hand over the possession of the property. 5. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that a counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents wherein they have said that the order passed in S.A.R. Case No.654 of 2005-06 has been wrongly passed and that is why they are sitting tight over the matter. 6. 5. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that a counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents wherein they have said that the order passed in S.A.R. Case No.654 of 2005-06 has been wrongly passed and that is why they are sitting tight over the matter. 6. The counsel for the petitioner submits that order passed in S.A.R. Case No. 654 of 2005-06 is a quasi-judicial order and the respondents are duty bound to give effect to such order and it is not permissible to them to sit over the orders which has been passed by the competent authority under the provisions of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. 7. Counsel for the respondents on the other hand refers to a statement made in para-7 of the counter-affidavit which reads as follows:- "That it is further humbly stated and submitted that the then learned Special Regulation Officer, Ranchi has passed order for restoration of land in question of Mouza - Tiril, Thana No.-195, Khata No.92, Plot No.-435, Area 0.07 acres in favour of Dashwa Oraon v. Dulari Tirkey in terms of Order dated 28.04.2008 under Section 71 A of the C.N.T. Act without thoroughly examining the Revenue Records. The land of Village-Tiril Khata No.92, Plot No.435, Area 0.07 acres was recorded in the name of Sukhram Oraon, Son of Chero Oraon as Kayami in C.S. Khatian not in the R.S. Khatian. But the then learned Special Regulation Officer, Ranchi did mistake to consider that the said land in question has been recorded in the Revisional in the name of Sukhram Oraon, Son of Chero Oraon as Kayami in the Revisional Survey Records of Right and accordingly the order for restoration of the land in question has been passed in favour of Dashwa Oraon (Writ petitioner)." 8. He submits that there has been an error in verifying the khatian or record of rights while passing order dated 28.04.2008 and accordingly the said order has not been given effect to by the circle officer, Ranchi. However, counsel for the respondents could not satisfy the Court as to how the Circle Officer, Ranchi could sit over the order which has been passed by the Special Officer in S.A.R. Case No.654 dated 28.04.2008. 9. However, counsel for the respondents could not satisfy the Court as to how the Circle Officer, Ranchi could sit over the order which has been passed by the Special Officer in S.A.R. Case No.654 dated 28.04.2008. 9. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record this court finds that the order of restoration of land was passed by the Special Officer in S.A.R. Case No.654 dated 28.04.2008 in favour of the petitioner which was also confirmed by the appellate authority. 10. The order passed by the Special Officer in S.A.R. Case No.654 dated 28.04.2008 attained finality and accordingly the petitioner filed application before the Circle Officer, Ranchi for taking physical possession of the property. 11. This court is of the considered view that once an order of restoration of land has been passed in favour of the petitioner, the circle officer has no jurisdiction to sit over the same and not take appropriate steps for handing over physical possession of the property to the petitioner. 12. The order passed by the Special Officer in S.A.R. Case No.654 dated 28.04.2008 is an order passed in exercise of quasi judicial powers and the fruits of the same cannot be denied to the petitioner unless it is quashed or stayed by a competent authority. It is not open to the respondents to say that the order passed by the Special Officer in S.A.R. Case No.654 dated 28.04.2008 has been erroneously passed and hence not to give effect to the said order. 13. The action of the Circle Officer, Ranchi in not giving due effect to the order passed by the Special Officer in S.A.R. Case No.654 dated 28.04.2008 amounts to overreaching the majesty of law and is accordingly against the very concept of rule of law. 14. If the respondents has any grievance in connection with the order passed by the Special Officer in S.A.R. Case No.654 dated 28.04.2008 or the appellate order they may take recourse to law under the remedies which are available to them but as long as the order passed by the Special Officer in S.A.R. Case No.654 dated 28.04.2008 is not stayed or set-aside the respondents are duty bound to give effect to the same. 15. 15. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court directs the Circle Officer, Ranchi to immediately give effect to the order passed by the Special Officer in S.A.R. Case No.654 dated 28.04.2008 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 16. With the aforesaid observation and direction this writ petition is disposed of.