Back
1993 Supreme(Pat) 301
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.B.Sinha and R.N.Prasad JJ.
Karan Murmu
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6200 of 1991 ;
Decided On : JULY 22, 1993
The Commissioner's revisional power under Section 59 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act is wide and not appellate in nature, allowing for suo motu review of cases.
Headnote:
SANTHAL PARGANAS TENANCY ACT - SECTION 13, 22(2), 29, 42, 57, 59 - SANTHAL PARGANAS TENANCY (SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS) ACT, 1949 - SECTION 1 - SANTHAL PARGANAS MANUAL - CLAUSE XV - SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS - EVICTION - REVISION - DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION - ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF WRIT APPLICATION: 1. The Commissioner's revisional power under Section 59 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act is wide and not appellate in nature, allowing for suo motu review of cases. 2. The Pradhan of a village cannot settle land with himself or comulraiyat without prior written sanction from the Deputy Commissioner, as per Section 29 of the Act. 3. The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited, and it cannot sit in appeal over statutory tribunal orders. 4. Substantial justice was achieved by recognizing the respondent's claim to one plot in 1949 and evicting him from another plot he claimed settlement for from the landlord. 5. Issuance of a writ of certiorari is discretionary, and the High Court will not quash an order merely because it is lawful to do so.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, claiming to be agnates of the recorded tenants, challenged an order passed by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, setting aside an order of the Settlement Officer evicting respondent No. 4 from certain plots of land. The respondent claimed settlement of the land from the landlord and had been recognized as having a claim to one plot in 1949 by a competent authority.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Commissioner had the authority to exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction and had considered all aspects of the matter before arriving at a finding. It also noted that substantial justice had been done to the parties, as the respondent had been evicted from one plot but had his claim recognized in respect of another plot.
Issues: 1. Whether the Commissioner had the authority to exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction in this case? 2. Whether substantial justice had been done to the parties?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that the Commissioner's revisional power under Section 59 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act is wide and not appellate in nature, allowing for suo motu review of cases. 2. The High Court also held that substantial justice had been achieved by recognizing the respondent's claim to one plot in 1949 and evicting him from another plot he claimed settlement for from the landlord.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ application, holding that it should not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in this case.
S.B.SINHA, J.
1. This application is directed against an order dated 10-12-1990 as contained in Annexure 5 to the writ application passed by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, (respondent No. 2) in Revision Misc. Appeal No. 403 of 1987-88 whereby and whereunder the order dated 23-12-1978 passed by the Settlement Officer, Dumka (respondent No. 3) in Suo Motu Case No. 148 of 1978 as contained in Annexure 4 to the writ application was set aside, in terms whereof respondent No. 4 Darbari Tudu was directed to be evicted from new plots Nos. 788, 789 and 790 (new) corresponding to old plot No. 677 of Jamabandi 26 (new), Jamabandi 57 (old).
2. Jamabandi No. 57 was recorded in the name of Ludha Murmu and Karan Murmu in Gantzers settlement report which is contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application.
3. Allegedly, Ludha Murmu left the village giving the land in question in Jimmanama to Pradhan Karan Murmu for a period of five years. Petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 and 10-11 are said to be agnates of the recorded tenants.
4. Ludha Murmu allegedly died in the year 1936.
5. Jetha Murmu, son of the previous Pradhan filed an application on 27-8-1948 before the Sub-Division Officer, Dumka being Settelement Fouti Case No. 50/48-49 for granting settlement of plot No. 677 and the learned S.D.O. allowed the said application in respect of plot No. 677 by an order dated 12-8-1950.
6. Respondent No. 4 thereafter, filed an objection to the effect that the said land had already been settled by the Pradhan with his father who has been in cultivating possession thereof.
7. By an order dated 9-9-1949 the aforementioned order was questioned in revision before the Deputy Collector, Dumka, being Revenue Misc. Case No. 79/49-50.
8. By an order dated 14- 10-1950 the same was allowed whereby it was held that the land in question was settled with Malta Tudu thirty years back. A copy of the said order is contained in Annexure 3 to the writ application.
9. Sixteen annas raiyats, however, were not noticed in the said proceeding nor the heirs of the co-tenants have been informed thereof. The petitioners, therefore, contend that they had no knowledge about the said order.
10. During the current survey settlement operation, a suo motu case bearing No. 148/78-79 was initiated by the respondent No. 3 on the basis of an application made by the State of Bihar wherein by an order dated 23-12-1978 the claim of respondent No. 4 was rejected and he was directed to be evicted. However, the respondent No. 3 allowed exchange of plot No. 268 (old) with plot No. 760 but evicted him from plots Nos. 788, 789 and 790.
11. Against the said order, the respondent No. 4 preferred an appeal before respondent No. 2 who by reason of the impugned order dated 10-12-1990 allowed the same.
12. The petitioner moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 689 of 1990 on the ground that after the death of Karan Murmu his heirs have not been made parties in the said proceeding and this Court accepting the said plea remanded the matter back to respondent No. 2.
13. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 10-12-1990 was passed by respondent No. 2.
14. In this case, a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4. In the said counter-affidavit it has been contended that in the last survey settlement operation Karan Murmu, Pradhan of the village was made Jimmadar for five years. It is also contended that the Pradhan Karat Murmu was not related to Buta Murmu. It is stated that Bula Manjhi was not the recorded tenant in respect of abstract Khata Jamabandi No. 57 of Woods settlement.
15. Bula Manjhi had a son Raghunath Manjhi and Ludha Manjhi was the son of Raghunath Manjhi.
16. The geneological table as contained in Annexure 2 has been disputed to the above extent.
17. It is stated that the petitioners Nos. 7 and 8 are not connected with the Pradhan of the village whereas petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 and 9 to 11 are descendants of Pradhan Karan Murmu, son of Durga Murmu.
18. It is, theref
