The writ petition challenging a notice to vacate a disputed plot was disposed of because the issuing Tahasildar recalled the impugned order and provided an opportunity of hearing in the underlying case prior to any vacation.
Writ petition dismissed; personal appearance of the Tahasildar dispensed with; certified copy issued.
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.
W.P.(C) NO.14361 OF 2016
1.9.2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
This writ petition has been filed impugning the notice dated 26.7.2016 issued by th
e Tahasildar, Simulia, vide Annexure-4 wherein the petitioner has been directed to vacate the
disputed plot under the guise of the direction of this Court issued in W.P.(C) No.9859/2016.
In assailing the impugned order under Annexure-4, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that looking to the direction contained in W.P.(C) No.9859/2016, this Co
urt in disposal of the said writ petition directed for disposal of L.E.Case No.59/13-14 within
a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order of this C
ourt and after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties affected and in this view of th
e matter, there was no occasion for the Tahasildar, Simulia to pass the impugned order straigh
tway directing the petitioner to vacate the premises in absence of disposal of L.E. Case No.59
/13-14.
During course of hearing of the matter at the stage of admission, this Court lookin
g to the state of affairs involved in the case and considering the serious allegation by the p
etitioner, by order dated 23.8.2016 directed the Tahasildar, Simulia to appear in person in Co
urt on 30.8.2016 and explain the impugned action reading together with the order passed by thi
s Court in the previous writ petition.
This matter was taken up on 30.8.2016, on which date Sri Jyotirmaya Kar, the Tahasi
ldar, Simulia appearing in person in Court submitted that the order under
Annexure-4 has been issued as a matter of misreading of the order of this Court and he has alr
eady taken steps for reviewing his own order. It is only after recording his submission that t
he Tahasildar intends to correct his own order, this Court postponed the matter to today (1.9.
2016) facilitating the Tahasildar, Simulia to take appropriate decision on Annexure-4.
This matter is taken up today. Sri Jyotirmaya Kar, Tahasildar, Simulia appearing in
person filed an affidavit indicating therein that he himself has recalled the order under Ann
exure-4 by passing a rectification order on 5.8.2016 directing his Office to issue notice for
show cause and hearing in the L.E. proceeding.
It is here observed that even though the Tahasildar has filed the affidavit on 31.8
.2016 indicating that he had already recalled the order under Annexure-4 since 5.8.2016, this
fact was not brought to the notice of this Court when he last appeared on 30.8.2016 and on the
other hand, he had undertaken in this Court on his personal appearance on 30.8.2016 that sinc
e Annexure-4 has been issued on misreading of the order of this Court, he is taking all steps
for reviewing his own order and the order dated 5.8.2016 was not even produced in the Court on
the last date. Therefore, it appears, an antedated order has been passed in regularizing the
defects just to overcome the problem he is facing in the present proceeding.
Be that as it may, since the order under Annexure-4 has already been recalled and t
he petitioner is being provided opportunity of hearing in the L.E. Case No.59/13-14 and that t
he impugned order is already re-called, no further cause of action survives in the present wri
t
petition.
The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Personal appearance of the Tahasildar, Simulia stands dispensed with.
Issue urgent certified copy.
Biswanath Rath, J.
3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition survives when the impugned order directing vacation has been recalled by the issuing officer.
What is the fate of the writ petition when the underlying impugned notice is already quashed by a rectification order?
Petitioner
Tahasildar, Simulia
Biswanath Rath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court