Back
2018 Supreme(Jhk) 740
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Rajesh Kumar Sahu, Son of Late Basudeo Sahu - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No.2812 of 2011
Decided On : 20-06-2018
For the Petitioner:Mr. Suresh Nand Tiwary, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Pragati Prasad, Advocate, Mr. Satish Kumar, A.C. to G.A.
Headnote:
Civil Laws – Issuance of appropriate writ – Restoration of possession – Writ petition has been filed for the reliefs that the petitioner prays for issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction to quash the order, as passed by the respondent no.1 in Ranchi Revenue Revision – For quashing of orders as passed by the respondent no.2 in S.A.R. Appeal (whereby appeal preferred by the respondent no.4 and others was erroneously allowed with order of restoration of possession of an area of 62 decimals of land i.e. beyond the land under proceeding, as owned and possessed by the Petitioner, transfer whereof stands validated in terms of orders as passed in S.A.R. Case by the respondent no.3) – For quashing of orders as passed by the respondent no.3 in S.A.R. Case (whereby an order of restoration of possession of an area of unspecified 7.5 decimals of land out of the said 62 decimals of land has been ordered) – For quashing of orders as passed by the respondent no.2 in S.A.R. Appeal T.R.– Held, Court is of the considered view that the order passed in S.A.R. Case could have been challenged by the private party in a proceeding arising out of the said case and could not have been assailed by the private party in subsequent another fresh proceeding. – Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the pronouncements of the authorities in connection with order passed in S.A.R. Case in subsequent proceeding in S.A.R. Case regarding its legality and validity was totally uncalled for and the authorities have failed to consider that the order passed in S.A.R. Case was binding on the parties even in the subsequent fresh proceeding in S.A.R. Case– Court is of the considered view that all the impugned orders being order dated 31.05.2010 passed in Ranchi Revenue Revision, order passed by The Additional Collector, Ranchi in S.A.R. Appeal passed in S.A.R. Case and order passed in S.A.R. Appeal so far as they relate to the land claimed by the petitioner, are perverse and are fit to be set-aside. – As per the case of the petitioner himself, the petitioner is concerned only with a portion of Plot No. 1290 i.e. total area of 45 decimals and so far as the rest of the portion of this plot is concerned, he has got no concern including the property in plot No. 1247, 1248, 1249 and 1250. – Court further observes that if any fraud has been committed in S.A.R. Case by any of the parties, it is certainly open to the private party to take steps in accordance with law in connection with the said order passed in S.A.R. Case and this order will not come in the way of private party to take appropriate steps. – Writ Petition Allowed
1. Heard Mr. Suresh Nand Tiwary, Advocate appearing for the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 4(a)(i), (ii) and 4(b).
3. Heard Ms. Pragati Prasad, counsel appearing for the respondent no.5.
4. Heard Mr. Satish Kumar, Associate Counsel to G.A. appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.
5. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondent no.7.
6. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs :
“A. That the petitioner prays for issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction to quash the order dated 31.05.2010, as passed by the respondent no.1 in Ranchi Revenue Revision No. 08 of 2010 (whereby and whereunder the said Revision case has been dismissed in the stage of admission itself);
B. For quashing of orders dated 11.01.2010 as passed by the respondent no.2 in S.A.R. Appeal No. 83 R 15 of 2008-09 (whereby appeal preferred by the respondent no.4 and others was erroneously allowed with order of restoration of possession of an area of 62 decimals of land i.e. beyond the land under proceeding, as owned and possessed by the Petitioner, transfer whereof stands validated in terms of orders dated 22.08.2000/05.07.2001, as passed in S.A.R. Case No. 49 of 2000-01, by the respondent no.3);
C. For quashing of orders dated 30.05.2008 as passed by the respondent no.3 in S.A.R. Case No.99 of 2001-02 (whereby an order of restoration of possession of an area of unspecified 7.5 decimals of land out of the said 62 decimals of land has been ordered); and
D. For quashing of orders dated 16.06.2006, as passed by the respondent no.2 in S.A.R. Appeal No. 138 R15 of 02-03/A.C. T.R. no. 22 R 15/03-04 (whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the respondent no.4 and others was allowed with remand of the S.A.R. case no.99 of 01-02, which was earlier rejected in terms of orders dated 07.11.2002, holding the same to be barred by law of Res-judicata).”
7. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the records of the S.A.R. Case No.1 of 99, records of S.A.R. Case No. 99 of 2001-02 and records of S.A.R. Case No. 49 of 2000-01 were called for from the S.A.R. Officer, Ranchi and the same have been produced.
8. Counsel for the petitioner submits as under :
(a) The father of the petitioner had taken settlement of 50 decimals of land pertaining to R.S. Plot Nos.1289, 1290 and 1293 at village Hinoo, P.S. Doranda (now Jagarnathpur) in the district of Ranchi in the year, 1945 from the then land lord. The recorded tenants in the year, 1941-42 had surrendered the land to the then landlord.
(b) On the said property, the petitioner had constructed substantial structure including the boundary wall and the residential house and the property upon measurement was subsequently found to be total 62 decimals and is in possession of the petitioner and his family.
(c) However, in the year, 2000-01 one S.A.R. Case No. 49 of 2000-01 was filed by four persons namely, Kirta Oraon son of Late Mangra Oraon, Ramai Oraon son of Late Mangra Oraon, Koleha Oraon son of Late Dhura Oraon and Biswanath Kacchap son of Jagarnath Oraon. The said case was filed in connection with the property for plot nos. 1289, 1290 and 1293. This case was decided by final order dated 22.08.2000 and as per the 2nd proviso of Section 71A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, a direction was issued for payment of compensation amounting to Rs. 4,80,000/- for 62 decimal (40 khatas) @ Rs.12,000/- per khatha by bank draft to the applicants of the said case which, according to the petitioner, was paid to the said applicants by way of bank draft and the amount was duly credited in the respective accounts of the said applicants.
(d) Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the said order passed in S.A.R. Case No. 49 of 2000-01 attained finality.
(e) He submits that on 20.02.2002 another application being S.A.R. Case No. 99 of 2001-02 was filed by Koleha Oraon son of Late Dhura Oraon and Biswanath Oraon son of Late Jagarnath Oraon against Kamta Prasad as we
