Rupchand Jain & Ors vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 4440 Jhar

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                       (Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
                      W.P.(C) No. 3939 of 2011
                          ........

Rupchand Jain & Ors.                             ..... Petitioners
                            Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors.            ....      ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through : Video Conferencing) ............

For the Petitioners : Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate For the Respondents/State : Mr. Sachin Kumar, A.A.G.-II Mr. P. A. S. Pati, G. A.-II ........

07/26.11.2021.

Nobody appears for the State as the cause list reflect only G.A. From perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the State on 16.03.2012 sworn by Kumkum Prasad, D/o Late D. N. Prasad, Executive Magistrate, Sadar Hazaribagh, it appears that Mr. A. K. Verma J. C. to the then AAG has filed this counter affidavit.

Today, this Court is working through virtual mode and learned counsel Mr. Sachin Kumar, A.A.G.-II and learned counsel Mr. P. A. S. Pati, G.A.-II, who are on monitor could not ensure this Court that which Government counsel has been authorized this file by the office of learned Advocate General, as such, this Court directs both the counsels to assist this Court.

It is a glaring example where in the State of Jharkhand, the Deputy Commissioners are not holding any review meeting with regard to the pending cases in different courts either before the Sub-Judge or before the District Court or before the Tribunal or before the High Court, as this Court has found, in a number of cases, that cases are pending for 10 to 12 years, but no counter affidavit is filed and even in certain cases defects have not been removed for ten years.

In this case particularly, where the petitioners have claimed the land on the basis of a registered sale deed and same is affirmed by Judgment passed by the Sub-Judge, affirmed by the First Appellate Court and subsequently upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the State even thereafter creating some confusion to raise some dispute.

In the revision application vide order dated 05.10.2010 passed in

Rent Cancellation Revision No.69/2009, the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, has also recorded that the title suit preferred by the State vide Title Suit No.169/2006 is pending before civil court, as such, it is proper to await the decision of the civil court.

This title suit has been preferred by the State in the year 2006, after judgment affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the Title Suit No.169/2006 has already been dismissed in terms of order dated 25.07.2016, as the court has recorded that "it seems that they have lost interest in further proceeding. Hence due to failure of the plaintiff to take any step in the case, the case is hereby dismissed for default. Office is directed to deposit the record in the record room".

This Court feels that the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand should constitute a special committee to monitor all such cases in the District level as the entire proceedings are throttled because of inaction of the respondent-authorities (Govt. officials) and this Court even after sending so many orders to the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand is surprised to see such things are still continuing.

Under the aforesaid circumstances, this case is adjourned for four weeks, enabling the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand to file an affidavit, stating what action has been taken against such officers, who are responsible to look into such cases on behalf of the State but it seems that officers are not taking interest in the litigation on behalf of the State and several cases preferred by the State are being dismissed for non prosecution.

Under the aforesaid circumstances, the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand is directed to file an affidavit ensuring to the Court, that in future no such thing will happen in the State of Jharkhand, otherwise the court cannot be a mute spectator and will pass judicial order against such erring officer, in such matters in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil Vs. Mahesh Madhav

Gosavi (Dr) and others reported in (1987) 1 SCC 227, para-51 of which is profitably quoted hereinbelow:-

"51. This Court cannot be oblivious that there has been a steady decline of public standards or public morals and public morale. It is necessary to cleanse public life in this country along with or even before cleaning the physical atmosphere. The pollution in our values and standards in (sic is) an equally grave menace as the pollution of the environment. Where such situations cry out the courts should not and cannot remain mute and dumb."

Put up this case after four weeks.

Office is directed to reflect the name of learned counsel Mr. Sachin Kumar, A.A.G.-II and learned counsel Mr. P.A.S. Pati, G.A.-II in the cause list.

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the office of Advocate General, Jharkhand as well as the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand and the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand through 'FAX' at once.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Jay/-