Petitioners challenged a notice directing them to explain a situation in a SAR case initiated after three years of the original order. The Court dismissed the writ petition observing a coordinate bench had already dismissed similar notices.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.4920 of 2013
1.Jagdish Chandra Sharma, Son of Bhuramal Sharma, Resident of Matkamhatu, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Chaibasa (Sadar) District Singhbhum West.
2.Gayatri Devi Sharma, wife of Jagdish Sharma, Resident of Matkamhatu, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Chaibasa (Sadar) District Singhbhum West.
.…… Petitioners
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand through Circle Officer, Sadar, Chaibasa, DistrictSinghbhum West.
2.Turam Deogam, Son of Late Dumbi Ho, resident of Matkamhatu, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, Sadar, District Singhbhum West …… Respondents
| --------- CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRA ---------- |
|---|
| For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rishu Ranjan, A.C to S.C-III For the Respondent no.2 : Mr. A. K. Das, Advcoate ----------- |
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
9/Dated: 2nd March, 2021
The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the prayer has been made for quashing of the letter no.17.07.2013, by which the petitioners have been directed to appear and explain the situation or if any stay order is in their favour then to produce the same in connection with S.A.R Case No.18 of 1981-82 with respect to land situated under Khata No.105, Plot no.542, area 13.5 decimals.
The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition is that, the respondent no.2 had filed S.A.R Case No.18 of 1981-82 with respect to the land situated in Khata No.105, Plot no.542, area 13.5 decimals in the Court of Circle Officer, Chaibasa for restoration of land from one Gaytri Devi with respect to Khesra No.542, Khata No.105, Mouza Makhtadamhatu, area 0.14 decimal. The order was passed in the aforesaid S.A.R. Case vide dated 31.07.1983 against the petitioner no.2, namely
Gayatri Devi for restoration of land from her possession. According to the writ petitioner, after passing of the order dated 31.07.1983 for years altogether no steps were taken by the respondent no.2 for execution of the said order nor any separate execution proceeding has ever been drawn.
It is the case of the petitioner that after about 20 years on 14.12.2012 the respondent no.2 filed an application before the Circle Officer, Chaibasa in connection with SAR Case No.18 of 1981-82 for execution of the order dated 31.07.1983 and in pursuant thereto, the petitioners have been directed to appear vide letter no.714(B) dated 17.07.2013 and to explain the situation if any stay order is in their favour then to produce the same in connection with S.A.R Case No.18 of 1981-82 with respect to land situated under Khata No.105, Plot no.542, area 13.5 decimals, which is the subject matter of present writ petition, inter alia on the ground that the Circle Officer has exceeded its jurisdiction, in view of the provision of Section 181 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 which provides that no execution proceeding can be initiated after three years after the date of the order.
Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, stating inter alia therein that after the order passed by the original court in S.A.R Case No.18 of 1981-82 due notice was issued to the writ petitioners as because at the time of demarcation, the writ petitioners had claimed that the order passed under Section 17A in S.A.R Case No.18 of 1981-82 has already been stayed by the appellate court, however, he avoided to produce a copy of the said order. It has further been stated that the Circle Officer has never exceeded its jurisdiction but acted in accordance with law. It has further been stated that instead of filing response to the notice, they approached to this Court by filing present writ petition.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State as also the respondent no.2 herein, have submitted that a similar notice has been subjected to challenge in W.P(C) No.4921 of 2013 and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.09.2015 has dismissed the writ petition and therefore, the present writ petition may also be dismissed.
Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the fact about dismissal of the writ petition, questioning the same notice dated 17.07.2013 in W.P(C) No.4921 of 2013.
This Court, has heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has declined to interfere with the notice dated 17.07.2013 by dismissing the writ petition vide order dated 10.09.2015, therefore, is of the view that the instant writ petition is also fit to be dismissed by following the said order.
In view thereof, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Saket/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can dismiss a writ petition challenging a notice regarding execution of an old SAR order against a coordinate bench order.
Jagdish Chandra Sharma
Gayatri Devi Sharma
The State of Jharkhand
Turam Deogam
Sujit Narayan Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
