Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 871 (JHR)

Swagatam Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2021-10-18

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2021
ORDER : 1. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the remaining defects as pointed out by the office are ignored. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order as contained in memo no. 611 dated 13.08.2021 issued by the respondent no. 3 the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar as well as the entire proceeding initiated by the said respondent no. 3 in pursuance of the complaint made by the respondent no. 4-Abinash Chandra Baranwal, which according to the petitioners, is completely illegal and without jurisdiction. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the land appertaining to Mouza- Kenduwa, Jamabandi No. 27, measuring an area of 14 acres (hereinafter referred to as “the said land”) has been recorded in the name of predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners i.e. Narayan Modi, Jagdish Modi and Bhutka Modi, who were the recorded tenants of the said land as per Gantzer Settlement. The recorded tenants Narayan Modi and Bhutka Modi died issueless, whereas Jagdish Modi died leaving behind his only son Lakhi Modi, who also died leaving behind his only daughter Subhadra Devi, who is the mother of the present petitioners. Since there was no male issue of Lakhi Modi, his entire property devolved upon his daughter Subhadra Devi, who has been possessing the same as her Streedhan. The respondent no. 4 made a complaint before the respondent no. 3 alleging inter alia that the said land was settled in favour of his father and disturbance was being made at the instance of the petitioners. He thus requested the respondent no. 3 for extending legal assistance in measurement of the said land. On the basis of the said complaint of the respondent no. 4, an ex-parte order as contained in memo no. 523 dated 14.07.2021 was passed by the respondent no. 3 stopping the on going construction work over the said land. As soon as the petitioners came to know about the said complaint and the order passed by the respondent no. 3, they raised their objection by filing an application dated 17.07.2021 upon which the respondent no. 3 vide memo no. 541 dated 19.07.2021 recalled his earlier order dated 14.07.2021 though no reason was assigned for recalling the said earlier order. Surprisingly, on the basis of another complaint filed by the respondent no. 4, the petitioners were again served notice as contained in memo no. 3 vide memo no. 541 dated 19.07.2021 recalled his earlier order dated 14.07.2021 though no reason was assigned for recalling the said earlier order. Surprisingly, on the basis of another complaint filed by the respondent no. 4, the petitioners were again served notice as contained in memo no. 611 dated 13.08.2021 i.e. within a month of recall of the earlier order issued for the same land. The respondent no. 3, vide said letter dated 13.08.2021 directed the Officer-in-charge, Devipur Police Station to stop the construction work being carried out over the said land. 3. Under the aforesaid factual background, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even if the respondent no. 4 is aggrieved with the possession of the petitioners over the said land, the same gives rise to civil consequence and the respondent no. 3 being an executive authority has no jurisdiction to initiate any proceeding particularly restraining the petitioners from carrying out construction over the land in question. It is also submitted that none of the letters issued by the respondent no. 3 suggests that the said respondent has initiated any proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. 4. Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, AC to AG appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 3 while referring to impugned letter no. 611 dated 13.08.2021, submits that the effect of the said letter has already come to an end on 03.09.2021 itself. The petitioners have not brought any document on record to suggest as to whether any formal proceeding has been drawn by the respondent no. 3 in pursuance of the said letter. In fact, both the parties have been called upon by the respondent no. 3 vide letter of the same date i.e. 13.08.2021 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) to produce documents in support of their respective claims over the said land. 5. Be that as it may. Since none of the letters issued by the respondent no. 3 to the petitioners and the respondent no. 4 mentions any provision of law while calling upon the parties to produce the documents relating to the land in question, the present writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to file fresh objection along with the relevant documents in pursuance of the impugned letter as contained in memo no. 611 dated 13.08.2021 before the respondent no. 3 within two weeks. On receipt of the said objection, the respondent no. 611 dated 13.08.2021 before the respondent no. 3 within two weeks. On receipt of the said objection, the respondent no. 3 after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the respondent no. 4, shall take an appropriate informed decision within two months from the date of filing of the said objection. 6. It goes without saying that the petitioners are at liberty to raise objection with regard to the very jurisdiction of the respondent no. 3 in issuing the impugned letter as contained in memo no. 611 dated 13.08.2021 and any proceeding if initiated in the meantime. 7. The writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid liberty and direction.