Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J.
Dhaneshwar Rawani – Appellants.
Vs.
State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Revenue Department and Ors. – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 2593 of 2005
Decided On : 24.02.2011
Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act - Property Dispute - The court found in favor of the Petitioner based on prima facie evidence of possession and direct nexus with the previous owner. The court granted a stay on the orders dismissing the Petitioner's application.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner filed a petition against the orders passed by the S.D.O., Deoghar and the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, which dismissed the Petitioner's application under Section 56 of Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found a prima facie case in favor of the Petitioner based on possession of the property and a direct nexus with the previous owner. The balance of convenience and irreparable loss favored the Petitioner, leading the court to grant a stay on the orders.
Issues: Dispute over property ownership and mutation of name in revenue entries under Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the prima facie evidence of possession and direct nexus with the previous owner, as well as the balance of convenience and irreparable loss in favor of the Petitioner.
Final Decision: The court granted a stay on the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Deoghar and the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, during the pendency and final hearing of the writ petition.
D.N. Patel, J.
1. Present petition has been preferred against the order passed by the S.D.O., Deoghar as well as by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar which are Annexure-1 and 1/A to the memo of petition, whereby an application filed by the present Petitioner under Section 56 of Santhal Parganas Tenency Act was dismissed and therefore, the present petition has been preferred.
2. Having heard the counsel of both sides and looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, there is a prima facie case in favour of the Petitioner mainly for the reason that the Petitioner has constructed house, or has obtained from predecessor in title, in the year 1948. Approximately from the year 1948 the property in question is in possession of the Petitioner. Moreover, as on date of the application for mutating the name of the Petitioner in the revenue entries under Santhal Pargana Tenency Act, name of one Sri Lootan Kahar was already reflected in the revenue entries and the Petitioner has a direct nexus with the said Lootan Kahar
Lootan Kahar ______________________________ | | D1 D2 | Bhola Rawani | D | Son-in-low
3. Thus, the Petitioner is claiming the property in question as an owner of the property through Bhola Rawani who is father-in- law of the Petitioner and Bhola Rawani is the husband of Kowali Devi and Kowali Devi is one of the daughters of Lootan Kahar. Thus, there is also a prima facie case in favour of the Petitioner. Balance of convenience is also in favour of the Petitioner as the Petitioner is already residing in the said house since five decades. A balance of irreparable loss will be caused if the stay is not granted.
4. I, therefore, stay the operation, implementation and execution of the orders passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Deoghar dated-05.05.1983 and Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar dated 04.02.2005 which are Annexure-1 and 1/A respectively, during the pendency and final hearing of the writ petition.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
