Remanded

Asif Zeya And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC5 Jan 2022WPC/3207/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court set aside a Deputy Commissioner's revisional order remanding a mutation appeal due to natural justice violations. The court ordered the matter remanded to the Deputy Collector for a reasoned order within 45 days after proper notice to all parties.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of Deputy Commissioner set aside due to violation of natural justice; parties directed to appear by 27.01.2022; Deputy Collector directed to pass reasoned order within 45 days.

Asif Zeya And Ors. Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

[Civil Writ Jurisdiction] W.P.(C ) No. 3207 of 2011

¶3

Asif Zeya & Ors. .... .. ... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. .. ... ...Respondents

¶4

........... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through :- Video Conferencing) For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate Mr. Naiyar Eqbal, Advocate For the respondent- State : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG- III For the Respondent nos.5&6 : Mr. Rohitashya @ Rohit Roy, Advocate

¶5

07/ 05.01.2022 . Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

Petitioners namely, (1) Asif Zeya, (2) Arif Zeya, (3) Zahid Zeya, (4) Khalid Zeya and (5) Rashid Zeya, all sons of Late Zeyaul Haque, residents of Lalpur Villa, Circular Road, P.S. Lalpur, District- Ranchi have preferred the writ petition against the order of Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi dated 30.03.2011, passed in Mutation Revision No.52 R 15 of 2010-11, whereby the Deputy Commissioner has remanded the matter to the court of learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sadar, Ranchi with instruction that revisionist should be made party and after due inquiry and having heard both the parties and after giving them sufficient opportunity, afresh order be passed considering all the facts.

¶7

Learned counsel, Mr. Rajeev Kumar assisted by learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Naiyar Eqbal has submitted that matter cropped up as Arif Zeya, the petitioner herein has preferred Mutation Case No.3879 R 27/2009-10 for mutation before the Circle Officer, Sadar, Ranchi on 29.12.2009 with respect to the land of Mouza- Konka, Thana No. 198, Khata No.1611, Plot No.1430, Area 13 Khata 6 Chatak, which was rejected by the Circle Officer and against the said order, the petitioner, Asif Zeya and Ors. preferred Mutation Cancellation Appeal No.08 R 15 of 2010-11, which was allowed by the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sadar, Ranchi on 04.12.2010.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that as per Section 16 of the Bihar Tenant's Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, the order dated 04.12.2010 can be assailed by way of Revision before the Deputy Commissioner within 30 days from 04.12.2010, but the application was filed by the respondent nos.5 and 6 namely, (Sayeeda Karim and Farhat Warsi) on 08.01.2011, before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, which was registered as Mutation Revision No.52 R 15 of 2010-11 and the said application was allowed by setting aside the order passed by the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sadar, Ranchi and remanding the matter before the Land Reforms Deputy

¶9

-2-

¶10

Collector, Sadar, Ranchi against which writ petitioners have preferred the instant writ petition before this Court.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that from perusal of para 37 of the writ petition, it appears that no notice have been served upon the petitioners by the court of respondent no.2 (Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi) in Mutation Revision No.52 R 15 of 2010-11 nor any reason has been assigned by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi while deciding the Revision Application with regard to condonation of delay, as such, impugned order is bad in law and may be set aside, as the same is violative of principle of natural justice and the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi has recorded several other things, which he is not competent to record the same in the impugned order.

¶12

Learned counsel for the respondent nos.5 & 6, Mr. Rohitashya Roy has submitted, that revision application has been filed within time, but it appears that writ petitioners, who are writ petitioner being opposite party / respondent before the revisional court in the court of Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi has not been heard.

¶13

Learned counsel for the respondent nos.5 & 6, Mr. Rohitashya Roy has further submitted that initiation of Mutation proceeding before Circle Officer, Sadar, Ranchi was not maintainable.

¶14

Be that as it may, this Court is not giving any finding with regard to the merit of the case. However, the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi dated 30.03.2011 passed in Mutation Revision No.52R- 15/2010-11 is set aside on the ground that it is violative of principle of natural justice.

¶15

The parties are directed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi by 27.01.2022.

¶16

However, the respondents herein who were revisionist before the Deputy Commissioner i.e. Sayeeda Karim and Farhat Warsi are at liberty to file an application for condonation of delay, if so requires after verifying the record.

¶17

The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi is directed to fix the case for hearing after giving opportunity to both the sides to file their written notes of argument along with documents, but the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi must pass a reasoned order within a period of 45 days from 27.01.2022.

¶18

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi through FAX.

¶19

Parties are directed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi on

¶20

-3-

¶21

27.01.2022 and no fresh notice is required for securing the attendance as both the parties are present in the court and in their presence, the order is being passed.

¶22

Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of.

¶23

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

¶24

R.S.

Asif Zeya And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asif Zeya And Ors. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Sumitra Sinha Vs Arjun Singh And Ors.

Ms Adhunik Alloys And Power Limited Through Its Authorized Signatory Namely Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs Central Coalfields Limited Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director And Anr.

Shailendra Kumar Vs Road Construction

Golak Bihari Paul Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Rajan Lohar Kamar Vs Small Industries Development B

Anil Kumar Pandey And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.