Remanded

Shail Devi v. State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC8 Jul 2014WPC/6111/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Jharkhand set aside an impugned order dated 06/05/2013 passed by the Commissioner, Singhbhum Division, which was described as passed without hearing the petitioner. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner to pass a fresh order after giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 06/05/2013 is set aside and the matter remanded before the Commissioner to pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner.

Shail Devi Vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Jharkhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 6111 of 2013

¶3

Shail Devi......... Petitioner

¶4

Versus Respondents

¶5

State of Jharkhand & Ors……....

¶6

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.R.Prasad

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajeet Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. M.S. Akhtar S.C. (Mines)

¶8

6./08.07.2014 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that initially

¶10

the petitioner had filed an application before the Land Reforms Deputy Commissioner, Jamshedpur for fixation of the rent with respect to the lands situated at Mauza Bara, Ward No. 16 J.N.A.C. pertaining to Khata Nos. 2656(P), 2657, 2659, 2660, 2650(P) and 2626(P), corresponding to R.S. Plot Nos. 3718(P), 3735, 3737, ,3738, 3740, 3749, 3751, 3752, 3753, 3754, 3755,3741, 3742, 3789(P) and 4049(P) for total area of 3.61 acres. That application was rejected. Being aggrieved with that order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Jamshedpur, which was also decided against the petitioner. Against that order, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division, Chaibasa, which was numbered as Misc. Appeal No. 3 of 2011.

¶11

According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the matter was heard on 28/02/2013 and it was posted for passing order. However, before the order was passed, the Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division, Chaibasa, got transferred and, therefore, an order was recorded on 01/03/2013 to the effect that the matter be placed before his successor. Thereafter, it appears that the matter was posted on 20/03/2013 and 03/04/2013, information of which had never been given

¶12

to the petitioner and ultimately, on 06/05/2013, an order was passed whereby the orders passed by the LRDC as well as by the Deputy Commissioner, Jamshedpur, were affirmed.

¶13

Thus, it is evident that the Commissioner, who has passed the impugned order, had never any occasion to hear the petitioner, rather it was his predecessor in office, who had heard the petitioner, but by the time he could have passed the order he got transferred. Thus, it is apparent that the respondent no. 2 Commissioner -cum- Revisional Authority, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division, Chaibasa, has passed the order without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to be heard in the matter.

¶14

Accordingly, that order dated 06/05/2013, is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back before respondent no. 2 Commissioner -cum- Revisional Authority, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division, Chaibasa so that he may pass a fresh order in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner/revisionist, who would be putting his appearance within two weeks.

¶15

Thus, this application stands disposed of. (R.R.Prasad, J)

¶16

Mukund/-cp.2

Shail Devi v. State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shail Devi v. State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Savitri Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Ms Dudani Coke Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Sailesh Agarwalla and Ors. Vs Axis Bank Limited Through Its Chief Manager And Anr.

Bihar Khadi Association through Its Manager Sri Deo Nandan Roy and Anr. Vs Tata Iron And Steel Company Ltd.

Saurya Construction Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Rajendra Prasad Singh Vs Water Resources Departement

Sri Dalip Singh Vs Railways

Devashish Robinson Tigga Vs Ranchi University Through Its Registrar And Ors.