Lal Mal & Ors vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3497 Jhar

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           [Civil Writ Jurisdiction]
                           W.P.(C) No. 3558 of 2008
       Lal Mal & Ors.                                        .... .. ...   Petitioners
                                 Versus
       The State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Godda
                                                                  .. ... ... Respondent
                                   ..........

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

For the Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. N.K. Pandey, A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-I ......

10/ 20.09.2021.

Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

Being aggrieved of the order dated 24.05.2008, passed by learned District & Sessions Judge, Godda in Probate No.1 of 2007 whereby the learned District & Sessions Judge rejected the petition dated 09.10.2007 and directed the petitioners to file court fee worth of Rs.43,360/- within a fortnight and also directed to put the record on 10.06.2008 for hearing on the point of admission.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah has submitted that admittedly the Probate of Will is with respect to rayati land and as per Annexure-2 the valuation of the suit property mentioned in First Schedule of The Santhal Parganas Manual, 1911 and in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Patna in Civil Revision No.1205 of 1987 is to be calculated in terms of Santhal Civil Rules, which has been framed in exercise of power conferred under the Santhal Parganas Act and Santhal Parganas Justice Regulation where the valuation of suit cannot be more than Rs.500/-.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah has further submitted that learned District Judge erroneously has called for a report from the Deputy Commissioner, Godda and the Circle Officer without adjudicating that the land in question in the Will No.9 of 1962 belongs to rayait under Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act reported that valuation of the concerned properties would be Rs.4,66,400/-, as such, the direction to pay Rs.43,360/- with respect to such land is erroneous and contrary to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Patna in the case of Kamli Mahatowain vs. Jaglal Mahato, reported in 1994 (2) PLJR 353.

Mr. N.K. Pandey, learned A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-I appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that supplementary counter-affidavit has already been filed by the State relying upon Section 19H of the Court Fee Act, 1870. He has further

submitted that earlier vide order dated 14.12.2020, this case has been adjourned on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners to verify the fact that whether the petitioners are alive or not?

Considering the same, put up this case after Dussehra Holidays. In the meantime, learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to verify the fact whether petitioners are alive or not?

The learned State counsel shall also file affidavit with regard to submission made by the petitioners.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) R.S.