Ram Eqbal Mehta Alias Ram Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary and Ors.

12 / 16.02.2024 Petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing of the order dated 10.02.2014 (Annexure-5) passed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi in S.A.R. Revision No. 120 of 2008, affirming the order dated 12.05.2008 (Annexure-4) passed by the Respondent No. 3-Additional Collector, Ranchi in S.A.R. Appeal No. 81R 15/2006-07, whereby and wherein, the Respondent No. 3 set aside the order of S.A.R. Court dated 06.09.2006 passed in S.A.R. Case No. 885/2003-04, whereby and wherein the S.A.R. Court dismissed the claim of the private Respondent Nos. 6 to 9 with regard to the land appertaining to Plot No. 80 of Khata No. 14 of Mouza Hehal District Ranchi ad-measuring 0.90 acres.

¶17

Notice was issued for appearance of the private Respondent Nos. 6 to 9 but they have not appeared despite valid service of notice. This writ application is being disposed of after hearing the learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the State.

¶18

It was submitted that the petitioner had earlier purchased the land appertaining to Khata No. 14 Plot Nos. 128, 129 and 130, total area 3.10 acres at mouza Hehal from the predecessor-in-interest of private Respondent Nos. 6 to 9 namely Sundra Oraon. Subsequently, Sundra Oraon filed S.A.R. Case No. 183 of 1989-90 before the S.A.R. Court for restoration of his possession because he was the Tribal and the petitioner was the non-Tribal. However, S.A.R. Court disposed of the aforesaid case after granting compensation to Sundra Oraon who received the compensation. Subsequently, private Respondent Nos. 6 to 9 again filed S.A.R. Case No. 885/03-04 with regard to

¶19

¶20

the land appertaining to Khata No. 14, Plot No. 80 at Mouza Hehal admeasuring 0.90 acres. The S.A.R court dismissed the application on the ground that since the case was filed after 12 years, their prayer cannot be entertained. The private Respondent Nos. 6 to 9 filed an appeal before the Respondent No. 3 – Additional Collector, Ranchi who vide order dated 12.05.2008 passed in S.A.R. Appeal No. 81 R 15/2006-07 set aside the order passed by the S.A.R. Court in S.A.R. Case No. 885/03-04 and directed that possession of the private Respondents be restored in respect of the aforesaid land. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed revision against this order before the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi but the appeal was dismissed. It further appears that the order was executed and private Respondent Nos. 6 to 9 were given possession of half of the land appertaining to Plot No. 80. 4. Learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that during the execution proceeding, Amin had given a report that only 0.45 acres of land was available in plot no. 80 of khata no. 14. As such, possession of the said land was given. It was submitted that the possession with regard to the land appertaining to Khata No. 14 Plot No. 80 has already been delivered to the private Respondent Nos. 6 to 9. Learned lawyer further submitted that the subsequent S.A.R case was barred by res-judicata. It was submitted that the petitioner had built a house on plot no. 80 after purchasing the same from the father of the private Respondents prior to 1969.

¶21

Attention has been drawn towards the findings given in S.A.R. Case No. 183 of 1989-90 that Sundra Oraon, father of the private Respondent Nos. 6 to 9, had accepted in his S.A.R case that the petitioner had built a house on the land in question in 1969.

¶22

From perusal of the order, it appears that S.A.R. case No. 183 of 198990 was with regard to the land appertaining to Khata no. 14 Plot Nos. 128, 129 and 130. This case did not relate to the Plot No. 80 of Khata No. 14 of village Hehal and any admission by Sundra Oraon, father of the Private Respondents, will be deemed to be with regard to the land which was the subject matter of that case i.e. Plot Nos. 128, 129 and 130 of Khata No. 14. It will not be presumed that the petitioner had constructed a house on Plot No. 80 of Khata No. 14 of village Hehal. As such, petitioner has not been able to show that his house stands on Plot No. 80 of Khata No. 14 in village Hehal and the same was built way back in the year 1969.

¶23

¶24

Considering the aforesaid facts, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Respondent No. 3-Additional Collector, Ranchi in S.A.R. Appeal Case No. 81 R 15/2006-07 or in the order passed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi in S.A.R. Revision No. 120 of 2008. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed.

¶25

(Ambuj Nath, J)

¶26

Ranjeet/ Uploaded

Ram Eqbal Mehta Alias Ram Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Eqbal Mehta Alias Ram Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vijay Yadav Alias Vijay Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jairam Prasad Alias Jay Ram Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Radhey Shyam Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Balkrishna Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Kundan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.