The Revisional Authority must consider all the materials on record and pass a reasoned order when deciding a revision petition.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P. (C) No. 7360 of 2011

Panne Nath Mahato, son of Late Buddhu Mahato, Resident of Village-

Surid, P.O.- Turmuli, P.S.- Budhmu, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand)

…

…

Petitioner

-Versus-

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, P.O., P.S.

and District- Ranchi (Jharkhand)

3. Additional Collector, Ranchi, P.O., P.S. and District- Ranchi,

Jharkhand

4. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sadar Ranchi, P.O., P.S. &

District- Ranchi (Jharkhand)

5. Asharam Munda, son of Late Chanku Munda, Resident of Surid,

P.O.- Turmuli, P.S.- Budhmu, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand)

…

… Respondents

---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner

: Mr. R.S.P. Sinha, Senior Advocate

: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate

For the States

: Ms. Archana Kumari, Advocate

---

11/04.01.2023

Heard Mr. R.S.P. Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing

on behalf of the petitioner alongwith Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha,

Advocate.

2.

Ms. Archana Kumari, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the

State.

3.

Nobody is appearing on behalf of the private respondent in

spite of service of notice.

4.

The records of the case reveal that on 30.10.2015, an order was

passed that in spite of service of dasti summons, the Respondent No.5

failed to appear in the present proceeding. However, with a view to

give one more chance, the matter was adjourned for four weeks.

Respondent No.5 has not entered appearance by filing Vakalatnama.

5.

This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

(a) For issuance of an appropriate Writ / order / direction and/or a

writ in the nature of certiorari to set-aside / quash the order dated

31-07-2009 (ANNEXURE-4, Page No.32-34 to the writ petition)

passed by learned Additional Collector, Ranchi (Respondent No.3)

in S.A.R. Appeal No.- 108 R 15 / 08-09 whereby and whereunder the

said Appellate Authority had set-aside the order dated 21-06-2008

passed by the learned Land Reform Deputy Collector, sadar Ranchi

(Respondent No.4) in S.A.R. Case No. 06/05-06 by which the said

learned Court had ordered the petitioner and another either to

2

purchase the land equivalent to the land of Respondent No.5 and

hand-over the same to him or to pay the price of the land of

Respondent No.5 at the rate of Rupees 5903/- per decimal of land

through demand draft as compensation otherwise the Respondent

No.5 would be put in possession over the land in question by

dispossessing the petitioner and another and also, to quash / set-

aside the order dated 09-03-2010 passed in S.A.R.. Revision Case

No.

86/2009

(ANNEXURE-5,

Page-35-36)

by

the

learned

Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi (Respondent

No.2) whereby and whereunder the said Revisional Authority has

rejected the said S.A.R. Revision filed by the petitioner against the

order dated 31- 07 -2009 and ordered to restore the land in question

in favour of the Respondent No.5.”

6.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the private

respondent had filed an application for restoration of the property

involved in the present case in the year 2005 which was numbered as

S.A.R. Case No. 06 of 2005-06 under Section 71-A of Chhotanagpur

Tenancy Act. He submitted that after hearing the parties, the Land

Reforms Deputy Collector (L.R.D.C.) passed final order dated

21.06.2008 taking into consideration the materials including the sale

deed, rent receipts and licenses relating to business and other

documents and held that the present petitioner was in possession of the

property of house and business over the property for more than 30

years and held that the application of restoration of land was barred by

limitation. He submitted that in spite of holding that the application is

barred by limitation,