Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 302
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
Shankar Sahu, s/o. late Banarasi Sahu - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C). No. 1298 of 2025
Decided On : 11-03-2025
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rakesh Kumar No. 2, Advocate, Mr. Soumitra Baroi, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Omiya Anusha, AC to AAG-IA
The court emphasizes the need for fair proceedings, asserting that a party should not be dispossessed while a related appeal is pending.
Headnote:(A) Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 - Section 71-A - Writ petition for quashing eviction notices issued to the petitioner - The respondent's order restoring land to another party and subsequent eviction notices led to the petitioner's challenge. The petitioner was unaware of the previous order and contested it later. The court directed that the petitioner should not be dispossessed until the pending appeal is resolved. (Paras 2-8)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The court has the authority to issue interim directions to ensure fairness in proceedings, particularly regarding possession of disputed lands. (Paras 6-8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged eviction notices directed to hand over land possession based on a previously restored order in favor of another party. The petitioner contested the restoration without knowledge until receiving eviction notices.
Findings of Court:
The appeal regarding restoration is pending, and the petitioner should not be dispossessed until a hearing is held.
Issues: The core issues are the validity of the eviction notices and the petitioner's lack of knowledge regarding the prior order restoring land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of fair proceedings and directed that the petitioner be allowed to retain possession until the pending appeal's resolution.
Result: Writ petition disposed with directions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's request for writs against eviction notice. (Para 2) |
| 2. background of sar case and petitioner’s involvement. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. contention of respondent regarding delay in appeal. (Para 5) |
| 4. court’s directive to expedite consideration of appeal. (Para 6) |
| 5. interim order preventing eviction till appeal hearing. (Para 7 , 8) |
JUDGMENT :
(RAJESH SHANKAR, J.)
Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to implead Scheduled Area Regulation Officer (S.A.R. Officer), Ranchi as respondent No. 5 in the cause-title of the present writ petition.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for following relief(s):
(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/ direction(s) for quashing the Notice issued by respondent No. 3 in connection with Eviction (Dakhal-Dehari) Notice Case No. 35/2016-17 as contained in letter No. 164(ii) dated 04.02.2025 (Annexure-5), by which the petitioner has been directed to handover the possession of land appertaining to Khata No. 14, Plot No. 29, Area-0.5 kattha to the respondent No. 4 situated at Mouza-Chadri, Thana No. 199.
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/ direction(s) for quashing the notice issued by respondent No. 3 in connection with Eviction (Dakhal-Dehari) Notice Case No. 35/2016-17 as contained in letter No. 328(ii) dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure-7) by which the petitioner has been directed to handover the possession of land appertaining to Khata No. 14, Plot No. 29, Area 0.5 kattha to the respondent No. 4 situated at Mouza-Chadri, Thana No. 199,.
(iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/ direction(s) for staying the operation/ implementation/ execution of notice issued by respondent No. 3 in connection with Eviction (Dakhal- Dehari) Notice Case No. 35/2016-17 as contained in letter No. 164(ii) dated 04.02.2025 (Annexure-5) and letter No. 328(ii) dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure-7) till disposal of the instant writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 4 filed S.A.R. Case No. 35/2016-17 under Section 71-A of the CHOTANAGPUR TENANCY ACT , 1908, in the Court of respondent No. 5, seeking restoration of the aforesaid land. The petitioner appeared in the said case and contested the same. However, vide order dated 13.03.2024, the respondent No. 5 restored the said land in favour of the respondent No. 5 and directed the Circle Officer, Ranchi to ensure possession of the same in favour of the respondent No. 4 with a further direction to remove any structure standing over the land in question after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner.
4. It is further submitted that though the petitioner had contested the said case, however, he was not knowing about disposal of the same vide order dated 13.03.2024, about which he came to know only after receipt of Dakhal-Dehari Notice No. 35/2016-17, as contained in letter No. 164 (ii), dated 04.02.2025 (Annexure-5), whereby he was directed to handover the possession of the said land in favour of the respondent No. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred S.A.R. Appeal No. 110 R 15/ 2024-25 on 12.02.2025 in the Court of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi (respondent No. 2) along with an application under Order 39 rule 1 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking temporary injunction. The said Appeal has been ordered to be listed on 22.04.2025. However, in the meantime, another notice as contained in letter No. 328 (ii) dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure-7) has been issued by the Circle Officer, Town Circle, Ranchi directing the petitioner to handover possession of the land in question to the respondent No. 4 by 11.03.2025 failing which the possession of the same would be handed over to the respondent No. 4 by evicting the petitioner forcefully. Under such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that though the respondent No. 5 had passed order in S.A.R. Case No. 35/2016-2017 way back on 13.03.2024, yet
