Writ petition filed regarding land ownership and correction of records dismissed as the petitioner failed to appear and no advocate was present, constituting non-prosecution.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (C) No. 7691 of 2011
2
3
… … Respondents ---
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
06/13.02.2023
1. Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents Ms. Archna Kumari is present.
3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -
“A) For setting aside the order dated 10.06.2011 passed by Hon’ble Commissioner, Santhal Pargana at Dumka in Rev. Miscellaneous Revision Case No. 138 of 2009-10 and further pleased to direct the respondent authority for making necessary correction in the new parcha under the provision of Section 25 of the Survey Settlement Regulation, 1872 with regard to the Jamabandi No. 38 and 39 of Mouza Rangatanr, P.S. Palajori (District Deoghar).
B) For quashing the order dated 10.12.2008 passed by the Learned Settlement Officer, Dumka in M.P. No. 657 of 2010 whereby and where under Miscellaneous Petition filed by Lukhiram Hansda & others 16 annas raivats for correction of land in new parcha under provisions of Section 25 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act was rejected in illegal and arbitrary manner by holding that the same is not maintainable under Section 25 sub rule 2, 3, 4 of the Santhal Pargana Settlement Regulation-III of 1872 as there is no material error in the present settlement and no material error has been discovered in the record. The written notes of argument submitted on behalf of all the respondents completely supports the claim of the respondents. The written notes of argument submitted on behalf of all the respondents and the affidavit no. 6919 dated 23.10.2003 by Rameshwar Mahto and all documents support the claim of all the respondents, hence the petition is not maintainable and the petition is rejected because there is no material error in the record nor there is anything which will point to discovery of materials error in this record. After considering all the facts, the arguments, all the documents submitted by all the parties it is found that the petition is not maintainable and the petition is fit to be disallowed because there is no proof that the land in question has been settled in favour of the petitioners (16 annas raiyats) or there is no document to show that regarding the land in question a competent court like that of L.R.D.C. or S.D.O. of sub division or the Additional Collector or Deputy Commissioner of the District has never issued any Rent Fixation order meaning thereby that the petitioner have not got any document to show that their claim was supported by the order of the competent land revenue authorities.
4
C) For holding that the aforesaid order passed by respondent concerned is completely illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and the same has been passed in complete illegal manner for ulterior purposes.
D) For direction upon the respondents to make necessary correction in the new parcha under the provision of Section 25 of the Survey Settlement Regulation, 1872 with regard to the Jamabandi No. 38 and 39 of Mouza Rangatanr, P.S. Palajori (District- Deoghar) as the petitioner and his ancestors has been exercising right and possession over the aforesaid land since long.
E) For direction upon the respondents to restrain the respondent No. 6 to 51 from selling/transferring the land in question in favour of any other person as the petitioner has his right, title and possession over the same since long.
F) For payment of cost and interest for mental agony and harassment meted out to the petitioner for no fault of his own.
G) For any other appropriate relief(s), for which the Petitioner may be found entitled in law and equity.”
4. On 09.01.2023, it was reported that the sole counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sunil Kumar has expired and consequently, notice was issued to the petitioner, so that he could engage another counsel. Notice issued through speed post has been returned undelivered on account of insufficient address.
5. Faced with this situation, this writ petition is dismissed for nonprosecution.
6. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
7. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
Jai Prakash Singh
State of Jharkhand
Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar
Settlement Officer, Survey Office, Deoghar
Assistant Settlement Officer, Survey Office, Deoghar
Circle Officer, Deoghar
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
