Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 575 (JHR)

Bhimsen Agarwal v. State of Jharkhand

2021-08-03

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2021
ORDER : 1. This case is taken up through video conferencing. 2. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects, as pointed out by the office, is ignored for the present. 3. The petitioner seems to be aggrieved with non-disposal of Land Restoration Revision No. 48 of 2021 (Dhanbad) by the Court of Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the contents of the writ petition. 5. It appears that Binulal Kisku and Others filed Land Restoration Case No. 17 of 2013-14 in Court of Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dhanbad against the petitioner and others for restoration of the land, appertaining to Khata No. 88, Plot No. 3191, measuring an area of 4 Kathas, Mouja Dhaiya, Mouja No. 6 and Khata No. 29, plot nos. 3194, 3196, 3197, 3264, 3265, 3266, 3267, 3268 and 3269, measuring total area of 68 decimals, Mouja Dhaiya, Mouja no. 6. The said case was rejected vide order dated 16th February, 2016. Aggrieved with the said order, Krishna Kisku and others preferred an appeal being L.R. Appeal No. 04 of 2016 in the court of Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, which was allowed vide order dated 19th February, 2021. Thereafter, the petitioner being aggrieved with the appellate order dated 19th February, 2021 filed revision petition on 16th April, 2021 in the Court of Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, which was registered as Land Restoration Revision No. 48 of 2021 (Dhanbad). 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that after institution of the said revision petition, the case was taken up only on 4th June, 2021 and 2nd July, 2021 and on both the said dates, the Court was not held by the Commissioner due to Covid-19 pandemic. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the statements made in paragraph no. 25 of the writ petition, submits that the respondent no. 5 has visited the land in question, where an oil mill is situated, and has directed the petitioner to vacate the same pursuant to the order dated 19th February, 2021 passed by the respondent no. 3. The petitioner has also been orally informed that, in fact, the respondent no. 4 (wrongly typed as respondent no. 3 in the writ petition) issued letter no. 619 dated 15th June, 2021 to the respondent no. 5 for compliance of the order dated 19th February, 2021. 3. The petitioner has also been orally informed that, in fact, the respondent no. 4 (wrongly typed as respondent no. 3 in the writ petition) issued letter no. 619 dated 15th June, 2021 to the respondent no. 5 for compliance of the order dated 19th February, 2021. It is, thus, submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, on the one hand, the respondent no. 2 is not taking up Land Restoration Revision No. 48 of 2021 (Dhanbad) and on the other hand, the authorities are taking steps for the petitioner’s dispossession from the land in question. 8. Mr. Mukul Singh, learned AC to GP-III, appearing on behalf of the State respondents submits that the copy of the order sheet of Land Restoration Revision Case No. 48 of 2021 (Dhanbad) would itself suggest that the petitioner’s revision petition could not be taken up due to Covid-19 pandemic, however, since the pandemic situation has now improved, the respondent no. 2 shall make all possible endeavour to dispose of the said revision case expeditiously. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the aforesaid limited grievance of the petitioner as well as that Covid-19 pandemic situation has now improved, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent no. 2 to take up Land Restoration Revision Case No. 48 of 2021 and after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the private respondents (respondent nos. 6 to 18) to dispose of the same by passing an appropriate informed order in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Till the said revision case is disposed of by the respondent no. 2, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in question.