Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 790 (JHR)

Amit Kumar Mishra v. State of Jharkhand

2025-03-05

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2025
JUDGMENT : Deepak Roshan, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has prayed inter alia for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 21.3.2022 passed in SAR Revision Case No. 91 of 2008, primarily on the ground that the order was passed in favour of a death person and no substitution was carried out. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his predecessor in interest (i.e. Daroga Singh) and the father of Michael Munda, namely, Nathineal Munda were embroiled in a title dispute, being Title Suit No. 338 of 1966, which ended in a compromise. In terms of the compromise, Daroga Singh sold the scheduled property to the father of the petitioner vide a registered sale deed dated 11.08.1983. After the execution of the registered sale deed, the father of the petitioner constructed a pucca house over the scheduled land and started to reside there. He further submits that an application under Section 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, was filed by father of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 which was registered as SAR Case No. 63 of 1996-97 for restoration of possession of the land admeasuring an area of 1.02 decimals pertaining to Mouza Bargama, Khata No. 56, Plot No. 528 (hereinafter referred to as the scheduled land). The said application was dismissed vide order dated 13.7.1998. Further, another SAR Case being Case No. 68 of 1996-97 was also filed by Micheal Munda, wherein the Respondent No. 5 held that the compromise decree drawn in Title Suit No. 338 of 1966 was collusive and as such was not binding upon the parties. Thereafter, petitioners preferred an appeal before respondent No. 4, who remanded the matter back to Respondent No. 5 for fresh consideration vide order dated 13.2.2008/8.5.2008. In its order, Respondent No. 4 observed that the scheduled land was very small and as such the ends of justice would be reserved if the claimant i.e. Micheal Munda, is compensated as per the prevailing market rate instead of the restoration of possession. 4. Learned counsel further draws attention of this Court towards the order passed by the Respondent No. 4; wherein it has been held that Micheal Munda was not in possession of the scheduled property for more than 30 (thirty) years. 4. Learned counsel further draws attention of this Court towards the order passed by the Respondent No. 4; wherein it has been held that Micheal Munda was not in possession of the scheduled property for more than 30 (thirty) years. Upon remand, Respondent No. 5, adjudicated that payment of compensation to Micheal Munda would be justified as he had long lost possession of the scheduled property. Pursuant thereto, a revision was filed by Micheal Munda before Respondent No. 3 which was registered as SAR Revision Case 91 of 2008. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that after filing of the revision, Micheal Munda stopped appearing in Court and after some time, Respondent No. 6 and 7 appeared before Respondent No. 3, informing the Court that Micheal Munda was no more, and they were his legal heirs. However, no steps were taken for substitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the Respondent No. 3 was fully aware about the death of Micheal Munda, however, despite no substitution being carried out and the impugned order has been passed directing the restoration of possession in favour of Respondent No. 6 and 7. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, submits that the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 was enacted to ensure that the holdings of the tribals are protected. He submits that as the State is the custodian of all the lands settled in favour of the tribals; it is the duty of the State to ensure that the land is not transferred in contravention to the provisions of the Chotanagpur Act, 1908. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 and 7 have filed their vakalatnama on 18.7.2024. A joint-compromise petition in form of an interlocutory application being IA No. 7403 of 2024 has also been filed; wherein the parties have agreed to resolve their dispute. In Para-6 of the interlocutory application it has been stated that Respondent No. 6 and 7 have resolved their dispute and have no objection if the relief sought for in the writ petition application is allowed. 7. Having considered the pleadings and submission of the parties, this Court finds that the respondents have not disputed the fact that the impugned order has been passed in favour of a dead person. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gurnam Singh (dead) through Legal Reresentatives and Ors. 7. Having considered the pleadings and submission of the parties, this Court finds that the respondents have not disputed the fact that the impugned order has been passed in favour of a dead person. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gurnam Singh (dead) through Legal Reresentatives and Ors. versus Gurbachan Kaur (Dead) by Legal Representatives, (2017) 13 SCC 414 has held that any order passed against or in favour of a dead person is a nullity. The relevant portion of the judgement is reproduced as under for ready reference:- 15. The question, therefore, is whether the impugned judgment/order is a nullity because it was passed by the High Court in favour of and also against the dead persons? In our considered opinion, it is a nullity. The reasons are not far to seek. 21. It is a fundamental principle of law laid down by this Court in Kiran Singh case [Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340 ] that a decree passed by the court, if it is a nullity, its validity can be questioned in any proceeding including in execution proceedings or even in collateral proceedings whenever such decree is sought to be enforced by the decree-holder. The reason is that the defect of this nature affects the very authority of the court in passing such decree and goes to the root of the case. This principle, in our considered opinion, squarely applies to this case because it is a settled principle of law that the decree passed by a court for or against a dead person is a “nullity” (emphasis added) 8. In light of the above position of law and the prevailing facts, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned order dated 21.3.2022 passed in SAR Revision Case No. 91 of 2008 by Respondent No. 3 is in nullity and is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded back to Respondent No. 3. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case and Respondent no. 6 and 7 are at liberty to move before Respondent No. 3 to enable Respondent No. 6 and 7 to get themselves substituted in accordance with law and thereafter defend their case. Respondent No. 3 may decide the issue based on the pleading of the parties and the applicable case laws. 6 and 7 are at liberty to move before Respondent No. 3 to enable Respondent No. 6 and 7 to get themselves substituted in accordance with law and thereafter defend their case. Respondent No. 3 may decide the issue based on the pleading of the parties and the applicable case laws. The contesting parties i.e. the petitioner and respondent No. 6 and 7 may file their joint compromise petition which shall be considered while adjudicating the case in accordance with law. 9. The instant writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and directions. All pending interlocutory application, stand closed.