Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1045 (JHR)

Nizamuddin Khan v. State of Jharkhand

2022-08-22

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. The matter has been listed under the heading ‘for orders (defect)’. 2. The defects, as pointed out by the office, are ignored. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing at this stage. 4. The instant writ petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for direction upon respondent no. 4- Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Khunti to make assessment of the land in question in favor of petitioners pursuant to order dated 06.06.1979 passed by the Additional Collector, Sadar, Ranchi in Revenue (Rent Fixation) Appeal No. 7R15 of 1970-71 remanding the case to the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Khunti for assessment of rent but the learned Deputy Collector Land Reforms has not passed order relating to assessment of rent even after lapse of about 33 years. 5. Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the averments made in counter affidavit dated 24.09.2020 sworn by the Circle Officer, Khunti, has submitted that matter was enquired and after completion of enquiry, enquiry report was submitted, as would be evident from Annexure A to the counter affidavit but no final decision was taken. It has further been submitted that unless and until the final decision is taken by the concerned authority, the order passed by the Additional Collector in the capacity of appellate authority, who has remanded the matter for its consideration by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms-the original authority, will not be said to have been complied with but having not done so, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms has failed to discharge its statutory duty as conferred under the provision of Bihar Land Reforms Act. 6. Mr. R.K. Shahi, learned A.C to S.C. (L&C)-I appearing for the respondents-State has not disputed the aforesaid fact by going through the averments made in the counter affidavit wherein no decision in terms of enquiry report has been made and no such statement has been made to the effect that the Deputy Collector Land Reforms in terms of the order of remand dated 06.06.1979 in Revenue (Rent Fixation) Appeal No. 7R15 of 1970-71 has taken final decision. 7. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings available on record and annexures appended thereto. 8. 7. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings available on record and annexures appended thereto. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that even after the order of remand having been passed by the Additional Collector in Revenue (Rent Fixation) Appeal No. 7R15 of 1970-71 before the original authority i.e., Deputy Collector Land Reforms, no final decision has been taken by the original authority, therefore, the instant petition seeking a direction for passing appropriate order since even after 33 years of passing of such order of remand no decision has been taken. The aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been disputed by the Respondents-State, as it appears from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of State by the Circle Officer, Khunti on 24.09.2020. It appears from the counter affidavit that the factual aspect has been narrated about the title of the writ petitioners as also the land cannot be settled in favour of petitioners by incorporating the aforesaid fact in the enquiry report, annexed as Annexure A to the counter affidavit. 9. It is not disputed that when the Additional Collector has passed the order in the capacity of appellate authority, it is incumbent upon the original authority i.e., Deputy Collector Land Reforms to take final decision, as has been commanded by virtue of order of remand passed by the Additional Collector vide order dated 06.06.1979, but the Deputy Collector Land Reforms has failed to discharge its duty by not passing the final decision. 10. Therefore, according to considered view of this Court, it is a fit case where power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is required to be exercised by issuing a command upon the Deputy Collector Land Reforms to pass final decision. 11. Accordingly, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms is directed to take final decision in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 12. This Court before parting with the order took note of the fact that the Deputy Collector Land Reforms has not passed order for the forty years, which requires enquiry. Therefore, the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Govt. 12. This Court before parting with the order took note of the fact that the Deputy Collector Land Reforms has not passed order for the forty years, which requires enquiry. Therefore, the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Govt. of Jharkhand is directed to look into the matter and fix the accountability in not taking final decision, on being the matter was remanded, even after lapse of more than forty years, and initiate appropriate proceeding under the applicable Discipline and Conduct Rules against the erring officer(s). 13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.