Partly allowed

Aditya Pandey v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC20 Feb 2023WPC/183/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order dismissing a revision as time barred because it failed to record the filing of a condonation of delay petition. The matter was remitted to the Commissioner for a fresh order within four months.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 20.12.2005 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Commissioner to pass a fresh order on priority basis within 4 months.

Aditya Pandey Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors. — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W. P. (C) No. 183 of 2006

¶4

1. Smt. Veena Pandey, wife of Sri Ramesh Pandey

¶5

2. Ramesh Pandey, son of Late R. B. Pandey, both residents of mohalla Hesal, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District Ranchi (Jharkhand)

¶6

Deleted vide order dated 02.08.2022 Aditya Pandey, S/o Late Ramesh Pandey, residents of mohalla Hesal, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District Ranchi (Jharkhand)

¶7

Substituted vide order dated 02.08.2022

¶8

… … Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of Jharkhand

¶11

Commissioner, South C. N. Division, Ranchi, P.O. and District Ranchi (Jharkhand)

¶12

Deputy Commissioner, P.O. and District Ranchi (Jharkhand)

¶13

Special Officer, Scheduled Areas Regulation, Ranchi, P.O. and District Ranchi (Jharkhand)

¶14

Sanicharwa Oraon, Son of Late Sirwa Oraon, resident of village Hesal, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District Ranchi (Jharkhand)

¶15

Deleted vide order dated 16.01.2023

¶16

5(i) Amrit Devi, W/o Late Sanicharwa Oraon

¶17

5(ii) Sudhir Oraon, S/o Late Sanicharwa Oraon

¶18

5(iii) Bablu Oraon S/o Late Sanicharwa Oraon

¶19

All residents of Near Shiv Mandir, Bank Colony, Piska More, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, District-Ranchi

¶20

Substituted vide order dated 16.01.2023

¶21

… … Respondents

¶22

¶23

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --For the Petitioner : Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, Advocate For the State : Ms. Shalini Shahdeo, Advocate For the Resp. Nos. 5(i), (ii), (iii): Mr. Rajeev Kr. Sinha, Advocate

¶24

¶25

17/20.02.2023

¶26

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶27

¶28

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -

¶29

“for quashing the order dated 4.9.1997 passed by the Special Officer, Scheduled Areas Regulation, Ranchi in S.A.R. No. 1238/1994-95 respondent no. 4 under the provision of Section 71A of the C.N.T. Act contained in annexure 16 of this writ application whereby and whereunder the respondent no. 4 passed order for restoration of 25 kathas of land alongwith the building being portion of Revisional Survey plot no. 643 of khata no. 74 situated at mohalla-Hesal, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District Ranchi in favour of Sanicharwa Oraon respondent no. 5 and the order dated 20.4.2003 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi the respondent no. 3 dismissing S.A.R. Appeal no. 186 R 15 of 1997-98 contained in annexure 17 of this writ application and the order dated 20.12.2005 passed by the Commissioner, South C.N. Division, Ranchi in S.A.R. Revision No. 50 of 2005 dismissing the revision at the admission stage on account of being time barred contained in annexure 19 to this writ application.”

¶30

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this writ petition can be disposed of on a limited ground.

¶31

4. The learned counsel submits that the impugned order has been passed by recording that the revision was hopelessly time barred and that the petitioners (since deceased) had not made any prayer for condonation of delay. He refers to the petition for condonation of delay as contained in Annexure-18 to the writ petition and submits that the petition was filed on 06.09.2005 and the impugned order was passed on 20.12.2005. The learned counsel submits that the impugned order suffers from serious error of record, due to which, the petitioners have suffered irreparable loss and injury. The learned counsel submits that the impugned order also reflects that a written submission was also filed from the side of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that there is a direction to dispossess the petitioner from the property by virtue of order passed under Section 71A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. The learned counsel submits that a house structure is standing on the property involved in the present case.

¶32

5. Learned counsel for the respondents do not dispute that a petition for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation

¶33

¶34

Act was filed on 06.09.2005, but the impugned order has been passed by recording that no petition for condonation of delay has been filed.

¶35

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the admitted position that a petition for condonation of delay was filed on 06.09.2005 and the impugned order records that no petition for condonation of delay was filed and the case has been dismissed as time barred, the impugned order dated 20.12.2005 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and accordingly set-aside.

¶36

7. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the learned Commissioner, South Chhota Nagpur Division, Ranchi for passing fresh order in accordance with law including on the petition for condonation of delay. The petitioner as well as the private respondent shall appear before the learned Commissioner, South Chhota Nagpur Division, Ranchi on 13.03.2023.

¶37

8. Upon appearance of the petitioner, the learned Commissioner is directed to take up the case on priority basis and make all endeavor to finally decide the matter within a period of 4 months from the date of appearance of the parties. The petitioner shall also file a copy of the writ records and a web-copy of this order before the learned Commissioner on 13.03.2023.

¶38

9. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions and observations.

¶39

10. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

¶40

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶41

Mukul

Aditya Pandey v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aditya Pandey 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

Central Mine Planning and Desi Vs Director, Ranchi Security Priv

Shiba Devi And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Ram Mohan Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rameshwar Maharaj Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Ms Ganga Engineering through Its Manager Harendra Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand