Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1105 (JHR)

Dharmendra Kumar Upadhyay v. State of Jharkhand

2022-09-02

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2022
ORDER : The present review petition has been filed for reviewing the order dated 23.09.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2232 of 2021 whereby, according to the petitioner, the said writ petition was disposed of without hearing him directing the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa (the respondent no. 2 of the said writ petition) to take appropriate informed decision in accordance with law. 2. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the review petitioner, primarily submits that the respondent no. 5- Vijay Kumar Tiwari [the petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 2232 of 2021] alleged in the said writ petition that one Renu Devi (wife of the review petitioner) and the review petitioner on the strength of fictitious sale deed, were able to get mutation of the land in question in their favour. Therefore, the respondent no. 5 was under legal obligation to array them as respondents in the said writ petition. Non-impleadment of the review petitioner and his wife as respondents in the said writ petition has directly affected their lawful right over the land in question. The respondent no. 5 is also harassing them on the pretext of the said order. 3. To appreciate the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be appropriate to refer the order dated 23.09.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2232 of 2021, which reads as under: “The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent no.2 to ensure that no encroachment is made over Gairmajarua Malik land, appertaining to Khata no.178, plot no.157 (wrongly typed as plot no.173), measuring an area of 55 decimals and Khata no.100, plot no.153, measuring an area of 14 decimals of village Sahijana, Block Sadar, District Garhwa. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent no.2 to take appropriate action on the petitioner’s application dated 25th March, 2021, requesting inter alia for cancelling the Jamabandi opened in the names of private persons, as according to the petitioner the same is a government land. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the prayer made in the present writ petition, without entering into merit of the case, the petitioner is given liberty to prefer a fresh representation on the present issue before the respondent no.2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the prayer made in the present writ petition, without entering into merit of the case, the petitioner is given liberty to prefer a fresh representation on the present issue before the respondent no.2. On receipt of the said representation, the respondent no.2, after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other concerned persons including those in whose favour Jamabandies of the part of the land have been opened, shall take an appropriate informed decision in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of filing of the said application. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid liberty and direction. I.A. No.4718 of 2021 is also disposed of.” 4. It would thus be evident that the said writ petition was not entertained by this Court on merit, rather the said petitioner (the respondent no. 5 herein) was given liberty to prefer a fresh representation on the issue raised by him in the said writ petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa. On receipt of the said representation, the said authority was directed to pass an appropriate informed order in accordance with law within three months from the date of filing of the said representation after providing due opportunity of hearing to the said petitioner and other concerned persons including those in whose favour, Jamabandies of the part of the land in question were opened. 5. Though the respondent no. 5 was required to array the review petitioner as well as his wife and others against whom he had made allegation, as respondents in the said writ petition, yet since this Court did not enter into the merit of the said writ petition, rather directed the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa to take appropriate informed decision in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties, the review petitioner has failed to make out a case for reviewing the order dated 23.09.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2232 of 2021. 6. The review petition is accordingly dismissed. It is however observed that the review petitioner and other concerned persons are at liberty to take all available points with them before the respondent no. 6. The review petition is accordingly dismissed. It is however observed that the review petitioner and other concerned persons are at liberty to take all available points with them before the respondent no. 2, who, according to the review petitioner, has already issued notice to him and his wife for appearing in the case initiated by the said authority in pursuance of order dated 23.09.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2232 of 2021.