Birendra Nath Soy Vs the State of Jharkhand

----For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, A.C. to Sr.S.C.I For Res. No.5 : Mr. Samir Kumar Lall, Advocate -----

¶14

Order No.07 Date: 10.06.2024

¶15

¶16

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondents to call for the records with respect to the order dated 14^th June, 2019 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Land Reforms Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-respondent no.3 in Land Settlement Case No.01 of 2019-20, whereby the land appertaining to Khata no.201, Plot no.130, Thana no.17, Mouza-Ruchav measuring an area of 0.50 acre (50 decimils) has been settled in the name of the respondent no.5 on the basis of the judgement and decree passed in T.S. No.11 of 2010 and Title Appeal No.49 of 2011. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 14^th June, 2019 passed by the respondent no.3 in Land Settlement Case No.01 of 2019-20, whereby the aforesaid land has been settled in favour of the respondent no.5 without deciding the objection filed by the petitioner dated 23^rd March, 2019. The petitioner has also

¶17

prayed for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondents restraining them not to dispossess the petitioner and his family members from the residential house situated over the land in question.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the judgement dated 10^th August, 2011 passed by the Court of Munsif, Seraikella-Kharsawan in T.S. No.11 of 2010 and submits that the respondent no.5 (defendant no.1 therein) as well as the petitioner (defendant no.4 therein) are in joint possession over the land in question. However, before passing the impugned order dated 14^th June, 2019 in Land Settlement Case No.01 of 2019-20, the respondent no.3 did not even issue notice to the petitioner, though he was a necessary party in the said settlement proceeding.

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondent no.5 refers to paragraph no.6 of the counter affidavit dated 28^th February, 2022 filed on behalf of the said respondent, which reads as under:

¶20

“6. That on the recommendation of the office-in-charge of the police station proceeding under section 144 of Cr.P.C. was initiated and show cause notices were filed by both the parties. After hearing both the parties it was converted under section 145 of Cr. P.C. in that proceeding 2^nd party submitted that Respondent No.5 along with his father and brother were residing there with physical possession since 35 years ago after constructing residential house by his father in 1968, opened cycle store in a portion of the house. After perusing the evidences, by order dated 12/8/2009 in Misc Case No. 182/2006 the possession of 2^nd party (Respondent No. 5) by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Seraikella was declared.”

¶21

On perusal of the impugned order dated 14^th June, 2019

¶22

-2-

¶23

passed by the respondent no.3, it appears that the same was initiated pursuant to the judgments rendered in T.S. No.11 of 2010 as well as Title Appeal No.49 of 2011 in which the petitioner was also co-defendant/respondent. However, before passing the said order, the respondent no.3 did not issue any notice to the petitioner though he was a necessary party in the said proceeding. On the said score alone the impugned order dated 14^th June, 2019 cannot be sustained in law and the same is, accordingly, set aside.

¶24

The matter is remanded to the respondent no.3 to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as respondent no.5 preferably within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶25

The writ petition is allowed.

¶26

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶27

Sanjay/vs

¶28

-3-

Birendra Nath Soy v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Birendra Nath Soy v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagendra Prasad Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dharmendra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vijay Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Meera Kumari Alias Meera Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prabhat Kumar Poddar Vs State of Jharkhand

Ms Icon Dairy Food India Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Vivek Lamba Vs Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited through Its Chairman