Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
Sandhya Sharma, W/o Late Pramod Kumar Sharma – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P.(C) No.1695 of 2013
Decided on : 03-03-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Jamabandi – Add Names of Daughters - Application has been filed for adding names of both daughters of petitioner No.1, who died, in array of legal heirs - Whether Jamabandi was rightly created and cancellation is correct or not - Held, Deputy Collector Land Reform in entertaining application filed on behalf of private respondents has committed gross illegality, reason being that, when this Court has passed order in W.P.(C), such application ought not to have been entertained and it should have been dismissed at threshold - Although, Deputy Commissioner, while taking view that entry made in revenue record neither creates nor extinguishes any right and title which led Deputy Commissioner to relegate parties to approach before competent court of civil jurisdiction, while doing so, he is correct but he ought to have quashed order passed in Misc. Appeal Case by Deputy Collector Land Reform, otherwise aforesaid order will create prejudice to petitioners, if any civil suit will be filed by them - Accordingly, order passed by Deputy Collector Land Reform, Gumla in Misc. Appeal Case and order passed by Deputy Commissioner, in Case are hereby, quashed and set aside - However, since writ Court has already passed an observation in order passed in W.P.(C) to effect by granting liberty to parties aggrieved to approach before court of competent jurisdiction, therefore, there is no requirement to pass a fresh direction in this regard – Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
I.A. No.1644 of 2022
The instant interlocutory application has been filed for allowing the legal heirs of petitioner No.1 to make correction in the cause title, subject, Para 1, 2, 4, 5 and prayer portion of I.A. No.977 of 2022 wherein instead of I.A. No.34/2022 filed to add name of daughters namely Kumari Sneha and Pallavi Sharma of Late Pramod Kumar Sharma in the array of legal heirs of petitioner No.1, I.A. No. 32/2022 has been inadvertently typed.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents has raised no objection to the aforesaid prayer.
3. In view of the averments made in the application, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. No.1644 of 2022 is allowed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to make necessary correction in I.A. No.977 of 2022 during the course of the day.
5. I.A. No.1644 of 2022 stands disposed of.
I.A. No. 977 of 2022
6. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for adding the names of Kumar Sneha and Pallavi Sharma, both daughters of petitioner No.1, who died on 01.04.2020, in the array of legal heirs in para 3 of I.A. No. 34 of 2022 as (C) and (D).
7. Learned counsel for the respondents has raised no objection to the aforesaid prayer.
8. In view of the aforesaid submission and since no objection has been raised on behalf of respondents, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. No.977 of 2022 is allowed.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to make necessary correction in I.A. No.34 of 2022 during the course of the day.
10. I.A. No.977 of 2022 stands disposed of.
I.A. No. 34 of 2022
11. I.A. No.34 of 2022 has been filed by the legal heirs of Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 who died on 01.04.2020 and 28.03.2019 respectively to substitute their names in place of Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.2, after deleting their names from the cause title of the writ petition.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
13. Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6, objected to the said prayer by submitting that Petitioner No.1 died leaving behind his wife, son and two daughters, but interlocutory application has been filed only on behalf of wife and son of petitioner No.1 and the names of his two daughters have been intentionally omitted.
14. Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that he has also filed another interlocutory application being I.A. No. 977 of 2022 for adding the daughters of the petitioner No.1 also in the array of legal heirs along with wife and son.
15. On the basis of the averments made in the instant interlocutory application as also taking into consideration the fact that another interlocutory application has been filed for adding the daughters of Petitioner No.1 in the array of legal heirs of Petitioner No.1, the instant interlocutory application is allowed.
16. Accordingly, office is directed to make necessary correction in the cause title of the writ petition.
17. I.A. No.34 of 2022 stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) No.1695 of 2013
18. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein, the order dated 07.11.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla in Misc. Revision Case No.24 of 2007-2008 has been assailed, by which, the Deputy Commissioner, although, has relegated the parties to approach before the competent court of civil jurisdiction but without answering the issue about legality of the order dated 15.05.2003 passed by the Circle Officer, Sisai in Misc. Case No.15 of 2002-2003.
19. It is the case of the writ petitioner that an appeal was filed against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gumla dated 06.07.1961, which finally has been assailed by the respondents before this Court by filing the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.3063 of 2003. The Coordinate Bench of this Court has disposed of the aforesaid writ petition vide order dated 03.07.2003(Annexure-6 to the writ petition), whereby, this Court has refused to give any finding whether the Jamabandi was
The scope of judicial review is confined to decision making process and not the decision per se.
Point of law: Every appeal preferred after expiry of period specified in Sec. 5-A, of Act shall be accompanied by a separate application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit sworn to by....
Revenue authorities must adhere to principles of natural justice when altering land records, providing notice and opportunity for affected parties to ensure fair proceedings.
The court emphasized the necessity of proper notice to all interested parties in land disputes, ruling that orders passed against deceased persons are null and void.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cancellation of a mutation must adhere to the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions, and the authority reviewing the muta....
The court's decision emphasized the importance of upholding orders based on reports submitted by relevant authorities and the limited scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of In....
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
