Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 864 (JHR)

Prahlad Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2018-04-17

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, counsel appearing for the petitioners. 2. Heard Ms. Kirti Saboo, counsel appearing for the private respondents. 3. Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, Associate counsel to Standing counsel (Land & Ceiling) appearing for the respondent-State. 4. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “For quashing the order dated 30.12.2003 passed by the Special Officer, Scheduled Areas Regulation Ranchi in S.A.R. Case No.631 of 2002-03 contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition by which the Respondent no.4 has illegally passed an order for restoration of 24 Decimals of land being portion of R.S. Plot No.248 of Khata No.23 situated at Village: Jorar, P.O. and P.S. Namkum, District: Ranchi Under Section- 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act in favour of the Respondent no.5 and for quashing the order dated 23.03.2007 passed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi in S.A.R. Appeal No.94 R 15 of 2003-2004 contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners and for quashing the order dated 28.8.2007 passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi in S.A.R. Revision No.54 of 2007 (Annexure-4) dismissing the Revision filed by the petitioners on absolutely irrelevant consideration of the materials on the record and for such other relief or reliefs to which the petitioners are legally entitled to.” 5. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the point of limitation has not been considered by the authorities below and accordingly, the impugned orders are fit to be set-aside. He further submits that the petitioners were in possession of the property right from the year, 1945 but this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the authorities. 6. Counsel for the private respondents, on the other hand submits that the specific case of the private respondents was that they have been dispossessed for the period of above 15 years and the petitioners herein who were the respondents before the original S.A.R. Court although submitted that they are in possession of the property since 1945 by virtue of Sada sale-deed which they had purchased for an amount of Rs.85/- i.e. less than Rs.100/- and accordingly, the same did not require registration, but the said Sada sale-deed was not produced by the writ petitioners before the court below nor any documents were produced to substantiate their claim that they were in possession of the property since 1945. 7. 7. Considering the evidence of the applicants, the S.A.R. court allowed the application for restoration considering that the applicant had been dispossessed only for a period of 15 years. Against this, the petitioners had filed an appeal being S.A.R. Appeal No.94 R 15 of 2003-2004 wherein the writ petitioners had taken a different plea that they acquired the property by virtue of Sada Hukmnama but they did not produce any rent receipt before the appellate authority and the appellate authority considered the grounds raised by the petitioners and dismissed the appeal by holding that the oldest document which the petitioners are in possession of is a document of the year, 1978 and accordingly, the appellate authority upheld the order passed by the S.A.R. court. Against the said order Revision was filed which was also dismissed. Counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioners have lost before all the three authorities who have taken care of the aspect of limitation also. Counsel for the respondents further submits that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order and accordingly the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and after hearing the counsel for the parties, this Court does not find any reason to grant any relief to the writ petitioners particularly in view of the fact that the petitioners have miserably failed to satisfy the authorities below or even satisfy this Court that they were in possession of the property right from the year, 1945. Further from the findings recorded by the authorities below it appears that the private respondents herein were dispossessed form the property only 15 years prior to filing the petition for restoration of land and accordingly, the application for restoration filed by the respondents cannot be said to be time barred. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.