Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 4 (JHR)

Banwari Lal Poddar v. State of Jharkhand

2022-01-03

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2022
JUDGMENT : RAJESH SHANKAR, J. 1. The case is taken up through Video Conferencing. 2. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Ranchi is permitted to be impleaded as the respondent No. 6 in the present writ petition. 3. Considering the present pandemic situation, the office is directed to make necessary insertion in the cause title of the present writ petition. 4. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 07.12.2018 passed by the respondent No. 5 in Misc. Case No. 17/2018-19 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) whereby the petitioner’s application for fixation of rent for the land appertaining to Khata No. 38, Plot Nos. 339, 316 and 25, Mouza-Kelende, Thana No. 121, measuring an area of 4.93, 4.55 and 3.42 Acres respectively (Total 12.90 Acres) has been rejected. 5. It appears that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 4281/2015 seeking direction upon the respondents to dispose of his application dated 19.01.2015 for mutation of the said land in his favour as well as for fixation of rent for the same. During pendency of the said writ petition, the respondent No. 5 rejected the said application of the petitioner vide order dated 18.10.2016 which was also assailed in the said writ petition. A Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.08.2018, disposed of the writ petition setting aside the order dated 18.10.2016 passed by the respondent No. 5 and directing him to institute a case pursuant to the petitioner’s application dated 19.01.2015 and after providing an opportunity of hearing to him, to pass an appropriate order. Subsequently, the respondent No. 5 has passed the impugned order dated 07.12.2018 rejecting the petitioner’s request for mutation of the said land in his favour as well as for fixation of rent for the same. 6. Mr. A.K. Thakur, learned AC to AAG-III appearing on behalf of the State-respondents, submits that the petitioner has got alternative/efficacious/statutory remedy of preferring an application under Section 15 of the Bihar Tenant’s Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 1973’) before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Ranchi the respondent No. 6 against the impugned order dated 07.12.2018 passed by the respondent No. 5. 7. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view that the petitioner has got alternative/efficacious/statutory remedy of preferring an appeal under Section 15 of the Act, 1973 before the respondent No. 6 against the impugned order dated 07.12.2018 passed by the respondent No. 5, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition at this stage and the same is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. 8. The petitioner is however at liberty to take alternative/efficacious/statutory recourse against the impugned order dated 07.12.2018 as provided under law.