Remanded

Md Ansar v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC20 Jun 2019WPC/1772/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court held that a second revision filed before the Commissioner is not maintainable under the Bihar Tenant's Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 as no such provision exists post-repeal of Section 17. Pending second revision does not defeat enforceability of the valid revisional order. Petitioner remitted for decision within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Matter remitted to the competent authority to take a decision within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order, after hearing affected parties if any.

Md Ansar Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors. — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No.1772 of 2016

¶3

¶4

Md. Ansar ……… Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

The Additional Collector, Palamau

¶8

The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Hussainabad

¶9

The Circle Officer, Hussainabad

¶10

Gani Miyan 6. Md. Hussain Miyan 7. Md. Nashim Miyan 8. Md. Salim Miyan 9. Taimun Bibi 10. Shakila Khatoon 11. Tahirun Nisha 12. Naimun Nisha 13. Md. Anwar ………. Respondents

¶11

¶12

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶13

--------For the Petitioner : Mr. Baleshwar Yadav, Adv. For the Resp. No.1 to 4 : Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, Adv. For the Resp.-Nos.5 to 13 : Mr. Saibal Mitra, Adv. : Mr. S.T. Sajid, Adv. ---

¶14

06/20.06.2019 The writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has sought for a direction upon the respondent to act in pursuance to the order passed in Misc. Revenue Revision Case No.XV/31/2012-13 dated 10.06.2015, whereby and whereunder the order has been passed to allow to run the Jamabandi in the name of the mother of the applicant namely Md. Ansar and others.

¶15

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the Jamabandi was running in the name of predecessor interest of the petitioner but has been changed on the false plea by filing Misc. case being Misc. Case No.3 of 2010-11 by the private respondents, against the said order, an appeal was filed before the District Land Officer, Hussainabad but was dismissed vide order dated 05.10.2012, the petitioner being aggrieved with the same and has preferred revision before the Additional Collector, Palamau being Appeal Case No.06/2011 which was

¶16

disposed of vide order dated 05.10.2012 by which the order passed by the subordinate authority, has been set aside.

¶17

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that after the said order the same is not being acted upon, therefore, the instant writ petition. 4. Mr. Saibal Mitra, assited by Mr. S.T. Sajid, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents has submitted that against the order passed by the revisional authority, one revision has been filed before the Commissioner which is lying pending and therefore, order passed by the Additional Collector in the revenue revision case, is not being acted upon.

¶18

5. Mr. Sumir Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in reply, has submitted that under the provision of the Bihar Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, wherein against the order passed by the original authority, appeal will lie as provided under Section 15 thereof while revision will lie under Section 16 of the Act but there is no provision of second revision and as such, the pendency of application by way of second revision before the Commissioner will not come in the way of enforcement of the order passed by the revisional authority.

¶19

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions, it is evident therefrom that a dispute has arisen in between the petitioner and the private respondents for the issue running pertaining of Jamabandi over the land in question.

¶20

The original authority as also the appellate authority have passed the adverse order against the petitioner which has been reversed by the revisional authority acting in pursuance to the provision of Section 16 of the Act, 1973.

¶21

7. The contention as has been raised by the learned for the private respondents that the second revision has been preferred but there is no provision to prefer second revision against the order passed by the first revisional authority under Section 16 of the Act, 1973 after the repealment of the provision of Section 17 by virtue of the Act, 1973 which was in pursuance to the order passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Ram Chandra Ram and Ors. Vrs.

¶22

Commissioner, North Chotanagpur and Ors., reported in (1986) BBCJ 634 (Patna).

¶23

8. It is not in dispute that the power of review/appeal or revision is the statutory creation and if not provided, under the statute, the authority is not supposed to discharge the said duty.

¶24

Here in the instant case since the subject matter of dispute pertains to the provision of the Act, 1973 which provides the provision of appeal and revision and no such provision of second appeal after its repealment even if has been filed, the same have got no legal sanctity, since the Commissioner has got no jurisdiction to decide or to entertain the second revision, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the private respondents that it would be appropriate to wait for the outcome of the second revision, is not acceptable, accordingly, rejected.

¶25

As such considering the fact that the order passed by original authority as also the competent authority has been reversed, by the revisional authority, therefore, the authority is supposed to act in pursuance to the said order.

¶26

9. In view of such legal position, the relief as has been sought for by the petitioner deserves to be considered by the authority.

¶27

10. In view thereof, the matter is remitted before the competent authority to take decision in this regard within a period of six weeks’ from the date of receipt of copy of the order in accordance with law after hearing affected parties if any.

¶28

11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶29

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶30

Rohit/-

Md Ansar v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md Ansar v. The 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Triveni Das Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Gita Devi Vs Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Bijay Nath Verma Vs The Sail Bokaro Steel Plant Through Its Chief Executive Officer And Ors.

Bhikhan Sao Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dinanath Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Maa Kalyaneshwari Misthan Bhandar through Its Proprietor Asta Bihari Mudi Vs the Employees State Insurance Corporation