Quashed

Anil Garg v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC18 Feb 2021WPC/590/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed an impugned order by Additional Deputy Commissioner rejecting a stay application without hearing or appreciating arguments, holding it displayed non-application of mind. The matter was remanded to review the interim relief prayer.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 08.02.2021 quashed; matter remanded to respondent no. 3 to consider stay prayer within one week after hearing.

Anil Garg Vs the State of Jharkhand — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 590 of 2021

¶2

Anil Garg

¶3

Sunil Garg

¶4

Anand Dodrajka

¶5

Adarsh Dodrajka

¶6

..... … Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand

¶9

The Deputy Commissioner, Saraikella-Kharsawan

¶10

The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Saraikella-Kharsawan

¶11

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chandil, District- Saraikella-Kharsawan

¶12

The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chandil, District- SaraikellaKharsawan

¶13

The Circle Officer, Chandil, District- Saraikella-Kharsawan

¶14

Jogeshwar Sardar

¶15

Devati Devi

¶16

Anil Paswan …. …. Respondents

¶17

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶18

For the Petitioners :- Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate For the State :- Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, A.C. to S.C.(L&C)-III For the Resp. No. 7 :- Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate

¶19

Order No. 02 Dated: 18.02.2021

¶20

The present case is taken up today through Video conferencing.

¶21

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 08.02.2021 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Saraikella-Kharsawan (the respondent no. 3) in S.A.R. Appeal Case No. 02 of 2020-21, whereby the application seeking stay of order dated 04.02.2021 passed by the respondent no. 4- the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chandil in S.A.R. Case No. 01 of 2020-21, has been rejected.

¶22

3. The respondent no. 7 filed a case for restoration of land under Section 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 in the court of the respondent no.4 against the petitioners as well as the respondent nos. 8 and 9. The said case was registered as S.A.R. Case No. 01 of 2020-21. The respondent no. 4, vide order dated 04.02.2021 while allowing the said case in favour of the respondent no. 7, directed the respondent no. 6 to ensure delivery of possession of the land in question in favour of the respondent no. 7 within 15 days from the date of the order by evicting the petitioners as well as the respondent nos. 8 and 9 (defendants in the said case) from the said land and Jamabandi running in the name of Shivnath Sinha son of Kanhai Sinha appearing at page no. 438, Jild no. 01 of Register-II was also cancelled. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred appeal being S.A.R. Appeal Case no. 02 of 2020-21 in the court of the respondent no. 3 wherein

¶23

- 2 -

¶24

they also prayed for stay of operation of order dated 04.02.2021 passed by the respondent no. 4 in S.A.R. Case no. 01 of 2020-21. However, the respondent no. 3, vide impugned order dated 08.02.2021, rejected the petitioners’ prayer for staying the operation of the order dated 04.02.2021 passed by the respondent no. 4. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶25

4. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, submits that there is complete non-application of mind on the part of the respondent no. 3 while rejecting the petitioner’s prayer seeking stay of the order dated 04.02.2021 passed by the respondent no. 4. It is also submitted that the said impugned order has been passed by the respondent no. 3 in undue haste without prima facie appreciating the grounds taken in appeal seeking stay of the order dated 04.02.2021 passed by the respondent no. 4. If stay is not granted against the order 04.02.201 passed by the respondent no. 4, the appeal preferred by the petitioner in the court of the respondent no. 3 would itself be rendered infructuous.

¶26

5. Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate, submits that he has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent no. 7 through electronic mode yesterday itself. He further submits that the impugned order dated 08.02.2021 passed by the respondent no. 3 is completely justified as the petitioners were insisting before the said court to pass the interim order on the very first day of listing of the said case which could not have been possible in absence of the Lower Court Records (LCR) which, in fact, was called for by the respondent no. 3, as would be evident from the impugned order dated 08.02.2021.

¶27

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the content of the writ petition including the impugned order dated 08.02.2021 passed by the respondent no. 3, it appears that while rejecting the petitioners’ prayer for stay, it has been observed by the respondent no. 3 in the impugned order that without fully appreciating the order passed by the respondent no. 4, it would not be proper to pass an order of stay. In my view, the said reason assigned by the respondent no. 3 while rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for stay is completely outplaced and indicative of nonapplication of mind by the said respondent. If at all, the respondent no. 3 intended to go through/peruse the LCR maintained in the office of the respondent no. 4 before considering the petitioners’ prayer for stay, he should have called for the same and thereafter have proceeded to entertain the said prayer of the petitioners. That process would have hardly taken couple of days. Instead of prima facie applying his mind while considering the petitioners’ prayer seeking stay/interim relief, the respondent no. 3

¶28

- 3 -

¶29

outrightly rejected the same without appreciating the contention of the petitioners at all.

¶30

7. Hence, the impugned order dated 08.02.2021 passed by the respondent no. 3 cannot be sustained in law and the same is quashed/set aside. The matter is remanded to the respondent no. 3 to pass an appropriate order on petitioners’ prayer seeking interim relief, after providing due opportunity of hearing to both the sides, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one week from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶31

8. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merit of the case.

¶32

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶33

Ritesh/-

Anil Garg v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Garg v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sumit Kumar Vs the Union of India Human Resources Department

Hakim Momin Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chandrawati Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Chief Secretary And Ors.

Bishwanath Chatterjee Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ms Dev Prabha Construction Pvt. Ltd. through Its Authorized Signatory Vikash Kumar Singh Vs the Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Ms Aloke Steels Industries Private Limited through Its Director Sri Kamendra Mishra Vs Damodar Valley Corporation through Its Chairman