Remanded

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

Jharkhand HC17 Feb 2023WPC/834/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court quashed orders dated 24.10.2011 passed by a Special Officer regarding land restoration. The court held that the officer could not pass a final order on merits after the matter was reserved without a fresh hearing or notice, and the subsequent order attributed to a Lok Adalat was illegal as parties did not appear. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 24.10.2011 were set aside. The matter was remitted to the Special Officer for new hearing with direction for parties to appear by 17.04.2023.

Shiba Devi And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors. — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 834 of 2012

¶3

Shiba Devi, wife of Rambriksh Sao

¶4

Asha Devi, wife of Bhagwan Das

¶5

Maya Pal, wife of Late Ajit Pal

¶6

Shanti Devi, wife of Janardan Tiwari All resident of village Madhukam, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District Ranchi. … … Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand through the Commissioner, Ranchi at Collectorate Complex, Kutchery Road, P.o. & P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Ranchi

¶9

The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, Dist. Ranchi

¶10

The Additional Collector, Ranchi, Dist. Ranchi

¶11

The Special Officer, SAR Ranchi Collectorate Complex, Dist. Ranchi

¶12

The Circle Officer, Town, at Collectorate Complex, Dist. Ranchi

¶13

Birsa Oraon, son of late Kunwar Oraon, resident of Village Madhukam, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, Dist. Ranchi.

¶14

… … Respondents

¶15

¶16

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶17

--For the Petitioners : Mr. Chanchal Jain, Advocate For the Resp.- State : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Advocate For the Resp. No. 6 : Mr. Shambhu Nath Singh, Advocate Mr. Himanshu Bhushan, Advocate ---

¶18

07 /17.02.2023 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.

¶19

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 24.10.2011 passed in SAR Case No. 312/08-09 by the Respondent No. 4 whereby and whereunder, the Learned Special Officer has very illegally and against the materials and the procedure established under law has allowed the SAR Case and has ordered to restore the possession of land under Khata No. 49 bearing Plot No. 274 admeasuring an area 63 decimal situated at Mauza Mahukam, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, P.S. No. 204, Dist. Ranchi in favour of the private respondent no. 6 AND for also quashing of the order dated 24.10.2011 passed in the said SAR Case whereby and whereunder in furtherance to the aforesaid order passed in Mega Lok Adalat, the Learned Special Officer

¶20

¶21

has directed the Respondent No. 5 to ensure handing over of the possession of the land in question to the Private Respondent.”

¶22

Arguments on behalf of the Petitioners

¶23

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that one SAR case was filed by the private respondent which was numbered as SAR Case No. 312 of 2008-09 for restoration of land under Section 71A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. He submits that notices were issued to the petitioners and parties were appearing before the SAR Officer.

¶24

4. On 01.10.2010, the parties were heard and they also filed written submissions. By order dated 01.10.2010, the matter was directed to be posted ‘for orders’ and no next date was mentioned therein. He submits that thereafter on 24.10.2011, the SAR officer passed an order on the merits of the case by recording that he also heard the counsel for the parties and on the same date i.e. on 24.10.2011, it has been recorded that in view of the order dated 24.10.2011 in Mega Lok Adalat, the applicant (private respondent herein) was to be restored the land and the order was directed to be communicated to the circle officer Ranchi for the purposes of handing over the possession of the land.

¶25

5. The learned counsel submits that it is their specific case that the Special Officer, who has passed the order, never heard the petitioners and the petitioners never participated in any Lok Adalat, therefore, the impugned order which records that the matter was settled through Mega Lok Adalat, is fit to be set-aside and also the impugned order passed on the same date recording appearance of the petitioners, should also be set-aside.

¶26

6. The learned counsel has submitted that once the order was reserved on 01.10.2010, there was no occasion for the parties to continue their appearance before the authority. He has also submitted that the records have been received and from the records also, it appears that no attendance of the parties have been recorded after 01.10.2010 and no notice fixing the date as 24.10.2011 has been issued. He also submits that there is no notice on record asking the parties to appear for Lok Adalat. The learned counsel submits that considering the records of the case also, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

¶27

¶28

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the petitioners withdrew the appeal as because the matter settled through Lok Adalat cannot be challenged before the appellate authority and thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed. He submits that the appeal was withdrawn vide order dated 27.01.2012 by saying that the matter having been settled through Lok Adalat, the appeal was not maintainable. The order dated 27.01.2012 has been brought on record by the respondents in their supplementary counteraffidavit.

¶29

Arguments on behalf of the Respondents

¶30

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 6, though has not filed any counter-affidavit in the present case, but has submitted that on the face of the impugned order dated 24.10.2011, it appears that both the advocates had appeared and advanced their arguments. The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioners had filed appeal against the order dated 24.10.2011 and the appeal was not dismissed as not maintainable, but it was the petitioners who withdrew the appeal. However, he does not deny that an order was drawn by the SAR officer stating that on 24.10.2011, the case was disposed of in the Mega Lok Adalat. The learned counsel submits that first the order of the SAR Court dated 24.10.2011 was passed and on the same day, another order was drawn dated 24.10.2011 stating that the case was being disposed of in view of order dated 24.10.2011 passed in Mega Lok Adalat.

¶31

9. However, The learned counsel for the respondent no.6 also had the occasion to go through the records received from the SAR Court. He also could not point out any attendance filed by the petitioners or the respondent no. 6 for the purposes of argument of the case on 24.10.2011. No Award containing signature of the parties has been found on record.

¶32

10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- State has placed the records from the SAR court and has submitted that it is apparent that on 01.10.2010, the arguments were concluded and written submissions were also filed and it was to be placed for order and no date was fixed. From the records of the case, he could not

¶33

¶34

show any notice having been issued to the petitioners after the order dated 01.10.2010.

¶35

11. The learned counsel for the respondent -State has referred to the proceeding sheet of Mega Lok Adalat which is at page no. 10 of the record, which contains the signature of one Advocate, one Executive Magistrate, Sadar Ranchi and also of the SAR officer mentioning that the case is being disposed of. The said proceeding also does not contain the signature of the parties. It contains the signature of Sudhir Kumar Shrivastava, who was not the counsel of either of the parties. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on instructions, has submitted that on the date when matter was lastly heard i.e. on 01.10.2010, the SAR officer was a different person and not the same person who had passed the impugned order dated 24.10.2011.

¶36

13. In response, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 has submitted that if a judge has heard the matter and written submissions were also filed, then his successor in office can pass the order on the basis of materials available on record and therefore, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners by virtue of the order dated 24.10.2011 which is an elaborate order on merits. The learned counsel has submitted that the argument of the petitioners that the successor in office could not have passed the order without fresh hearing, is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶37

Findings of this Court

¶38

14. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on the basis of records received from SAR court are required to be considered.

¶39

15. In view of the aforesaid submissions and after going through the records received from SAR Officer, this Court finds that the matter before the SAR officer was heard on 01.10.2010 thereafter neither any date was fixed by the SAR Officer nor any attendance after 01.10.2010 on behalf of petitioners or the private respondent has been found in the records received from the SAR officer. The records also reveal that no notice was ever issued fixing 24.10.2011 as the date of hearing. In view of the aforesaid fact, there was no occasion for any of the parties to appear before the SAR court and advance their arguments on 24.10.2011 and on the same day Mega Lok Adalat was

¶40

¶41

also held. The sheet which mentions about the Mega Lok Adalat does not record the appearance of the petitioners or the private respondent. The order of the Mega Lok Adalat dated 24.10.2011 reflects that the case was disposed of in terms of order dated 24.10.2011 and a separate order on merits of the same date i.e. 24.10.2011 has been drawn recording that the parties have appeared and advanced their arguments but neither any notice fixing the date of hearing as 24.10.2011 was issued nor any attendance or memo of appearance of the petitioners or the private respondent have been found in the record. The petitioners have taken a specific plea that they were not noticed for hearing on 24.10.2011. The records of the case also do not indicate any notice issued to the petitioners fixing the date as 24.10.2011. Thus, there is no doubt that the officer who had passed the order dated 24.10.2011 had neither heard the petitioners nor heard the respondent no. 6. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the SAR Officer, recording that he heard both the parties while passing the impugned order dated 24.10.2011, is not substantiated by the materials available in the records of SAR Officer.

¶42

16. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the order dated 24.10.2011, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The arguments of the learned counsel for the private respondent that the matter having been heard on 01.10.2010 and written submissions having been filed, the final order could have been passed even by the successor in office, is devoid of merits, hence rejected. This Court is of the considered view that hearing in a case is an important step and once the order is reserved, the final order cannot be passed by the successor in office unless the matter is posted for re-hearing. The proceedings before the SAR Officer are serious proceedings relating to land dispute and the matter was required to be reheard by issuing fresh notice to the parties concerned. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.10.2011 is hereby set-aside.

¶43

17. This Court also finds that after passing the order on merits on 24.10.2011, the learned SAR officer passed another order in continuity dated 24.10.2011 stating that the case is disposed of in view of the decision taken in Mega Lok Adalat. This Court is of the considered view that such order dated 24.10.2011 which is said to

¶44

¶45

have been passed in the Mega Lok Adalat is ex-facie illegal and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law as none of the parties appeared or were even noticed for appearance in Mega Lok Adalat. The order passed by the Mega Lok Adalat or its proceeding does not reflect appearance of the petitioners or the private party on 24.10.2011. Accordingly, the order dated 24.10.2011 passed in Mega Lok Adalat, recording that the matter was being disposed of through Mega Lok Adalat in view of another order dated 24.10.2011, is also set-aside.

¶46

18. So far as filing of appeal by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 24.10.2011, is concerned, the same has been rightly withdrawn by stating that the appeal was not maintainable in view of the order dated 24.10.2011 indicating that the case is settled through Mega Lok Adalat. This court is of the considered view that on the face of the order dated 24.10.2011 wherein the matter was said to be settled through Mega Lok Adalat, the appeal was not maintainable and writ jurisdiction was the only recourse available to the petitioners. The petitioners have rightly invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court.

¶47

19. This court has set-aside both the orders dated 24.10.2011 on the aforesaid technical grounds and the matter is remitted back to the SAR officer for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

¶48

20. The petitioners as well as the private respondent are directed to appear before the SAR Officer on 17.04.2023. The final order be passed within a period of two months from the date of appearance of the parties. The parties are directed to cooperate with the proceedings. 21. It is made clear that the SAR officer while passing the fresh order, will not be prejudiced by the earlier order dated 24.10.2011. The fresh order should be a reasoned order.

¶49

22. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.

¶50

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

¶51

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶52

Pankaj

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiba Devi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Pawitra Dharti Stone Chips Vs Mines and Geological Survey

Surendra Kumar Vs Collectariate

Birendra Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Ram Mohan Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Central Mine Planning and Desi Vs Director, Ranchi Security Priv

Rameshwar Maharaj Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.