SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Jhk) 371

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Shri. Chhotan Sao Son of Late Budhan Sao - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 2734 of 2008
Decided On : 13-06-2018

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Saurav Arun
For the State : Mr. Shamim Akhtar
For the Respondents: Mr. Niraj Kishore

The main legal point established is that orders passed based on a perfunctory inspection report lacking necessary details for passing an order under the Bihar Land Reforms Act can be set aside, and the matter remitted for a fresh order.

Headnote:

Land Reform - Pre-emption Case - Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, Section 16(3) - The court set aside the impugned orders due to the perfunctory inspection report lacking necessary details and directed the Land Reform Deputy Collector to conduct a fresh inspection and pass a new order within three months.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash orders passed by various authorities, alleging that the orders ignored basic facts and infringed on fundamental rights. The court directed the respondent-State to produce records of the case for perusal.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the impugned orders were based on a perfunctory inspection report lacking necessary details, and therefore set them aside. The matter was remitted back to the Land Reform Deputy Collector for a fresh order after conducting a proper inspection and hearing the parties.

Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the orders passed by the authorities, based on an inspection report lacking necessary details for passing an order under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that no order could have been passed on the basis of such a perfunctory inspection report, and the impugned orders were set aside due to the lack of necessary details in the inspection report.

Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the Land Reform Deputy Collector for a fresh order after conducting a proper inspection and hearing the parties.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Saurav Arun, counsel appearing for the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Shamim Akhtar, counsel appearing for the respondent-State.

3. Heard Mr. Niraj Kishore, counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 5 and 6.

4. Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that the serial number of respondent no.7 has been wrongly typed as respondent no. 6 in the memo of parties in the writ petition. He further submits that he may be permitted to correct the same during the course of the day.

5. Permission is accorded.

6. Let the necessary correction be done during the course of the day.

7. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

“For quashing the order dated 20.12.2006, passed by the Land Reform Deputy Collector, Ramgarh and order dated 11.05.2007 passed by the Additional Collector Land Ceiling Hazaribagh in L.C. Appeal No. 11/2006 and orders Dated 13.02.2008 passed by the Court of Member Board of Revenue, Jharkhand in Revision No. 37/2007 for having deliberately ignored/without taking into consideration the basic facts and infringing on the fundamental rights of the petitioner, without applying the judicious mind over the issue in question. Further, pass order or orders which may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

8. Vide order dated 12.04.2018, this Court directed the respondent- State to produce the records of Pre-emption Case No. 1 of 2006-07 from the Court of Land Reform Deputy Collector and pursuant to this order, records were produced and submitted to the Court for perusal. The parties herein have also gone through the records of the lower court.

9. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 20.12.2006 has been passed on the basis of inspection report dated 25.11.2006 and the said inspection report is available at page no. 15 of the records of Pre-emption Case No. 1 of 2006-07, as produced by the respondent-State. The counsel submits that the necessary enquiry for the purposes of passing the order under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 has not been conducted and in fact, even the boundary of the property has not been mentioned in the inspection report. The inspection report also does not deal with as to whether the pre-emptor is the co-sharer or the adjoining raiyat of the vended property. He submits that in the impugned order this inspection report has been referred to and on the basis of this inspection report, certain findings have been recorded which is not born out of inspection report and accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Land Reform Deputy Collector is perverse and is fit to be set-aside.

10. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that this aspect of the matter has not been taken care of by the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority and it appears that the appellate and the revisional authority have not taken care to go through the inspection report and the impugned orders have been passed. He also submits that although he has lost in all the three courts, but on account of the aforesaid perversity of the orders, all the three orders are fit to be set-aside and fresh order is required to be passed. He submits that the matter should be remanded back to the Land Reform Deputy Collector, Ramgarh for fresh consideration after conducting proper inspection and after hearing the parties.

11. Counsel for the private respondents, on the other hand, submits that the application for pre-emption was rightly filed and it satisfies all the conditions under the provisions of Section 16(3) of the aforesaid Act.

12. However, the counsel for the private respondents could not justify the passing of the impugned order on the basis of the so-called inspection report which does not contain the necessary details which are required to be i






















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top