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

2017 Supreme(Jhk) 1887

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
D.N. Patel, Mr. Ratnaker Bhengra, JJ.
Dwarika Kumar Das - Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand - Respondent
Writ Petition (PIL) No. 116 of 2015
Decided On : 27-04-2017

Advocates Appeared:
M/s. Rajeev Kumar, Vijay Ranjan Singh and Rupa Chandra, Advocates., for the Appellant; M/s. Arbind Kumar, J.C., for the Respondents

Availability of review powers to address irregularities in revenue matters and the state's authority to review orders and take criminal action if deemed just and proper.

Headnote:

Fraudulent Transfer - Tribal Land - The court addressed the fraudulent transfer of tribal land to non-tribals, contrary to the legal provisions enshrined in the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. The petitioner sought directions for FIR registration, implementation of C.N.T. Act, submission of investigation status report, and inquiry into similar fraudulent transfers in Ranchi district.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation alleging fraudulent transfer of tribal land to non-tribals, and sought actions against revenue officers for irregularities in deciding Scheduled Area Regulation cases.

Finding of the Court:

The court acknowledged the grievances against revenue officers and emphasized the availability of review powers to address irregularities. It highlighted the possibility of criminal action and the state's authority to review orders.

Issues: Fraudulent transfer of tribal land, irregularities in revenue matters, availability of review powers, and potential criminal action.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the availability of review powers to address irregularities in revenue matters and highlighted the state's authority to review orders and take criminal action if deemed just and proper.

Final Decision: The Public Interest Litigation was disposed of by the court.

ORDER

D.N. Patel, J. (Oral) - The Public Interest Litigation has been preferred by the petitioner with the following prayers: -

(a) For the direction upon the respondents especially respondent no. 7 to register First Information Report, against the culprits involved in fraudulent transfer of the Tribal Land to non-tribals contrary to the legal provisions enshrined in Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, knowing fully well that, it is not a transferable one, even then the respondent no. 8 has allowed transfer.

(b) For the direction upon the respondents to implement the provisions of the C.N.T. Act in the present case, which was reiterated by this Hon''ble Court in Salkhan Murmu''s case.

(c) For the direction upon the respondents to submit the status report of the investigation, when it is done by the Vigilance Bureau, and Criminal action taken by the Vigilance Bureau.

(d) For the direction upon the respondents the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, to enquire and submit the report of the similar fraudulent transfers taken place in the district of Ranchi.

2. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that several grievances have been ventilated against the Revenue Officers, who are also deciding the revenue matters, under the Scheduled Area Regulation, 1969.

3. it has been vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the documents have been brought on the record to the effect that there are serious irregularities/illegalities, committed by the revenue officers while deciding the SAR (Scheduled Area Regulation) cases under the aforesaid Regulation and, hence, it is prayed by this petitioner that some strict actions may be initiated against those revenue officers.

4. The aforesaid facts are rampant whenever any revenue matters are involved. There are powers of review, which can be utilised upon applications, preferred by such dissatisfied souls or by suo-motu. Thus, whenever there is a power of review given to the officers, it can be utilized when there is any patent or ostensible irregularities or illegalities. Such phenomenon regarding usage of the review powers, more particularly under the revenue laws, are not so unknown to the public at large and that does not mean that whenever any review power is exercised and review applications are allowed, the subordinate revenue officers should be dismissed or always departmental actions should be initiated.

5. Moreover, the State can also take in review such orders, in accordance with law. If the high ranking administrative officers under the revenue laws think it just, proper and equitable that any offence has been committed, proper action can be taken under the Criminal Laws also.

6. With the aforesaid observations, this Public Interest Litigation is, hereby, disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top