Jharkhand High Court
Shanti Devi & Ors vs State Of Jharkhand & Others on 19 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
W.P.(C) No. 4772 of 2012
........
Shanti Devi & Ors. .... ..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Others .... ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
............
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate
For the Respondents/State : Mr. P. C. Roy, S.C.(L&C)-I
........
11/19.04.2022.
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sandeep Verma has
submitted, that writ petition was filed by Jagatdeo Singh, son of late
Saghunath Singh, but during pendency of the writ petition, original writ
petitioner has died leaving behind his legal heirs: (1) Shanti Devi, (2)
Krishna Kumar Singh, (3) Santosh Kumar Singh, (4) Shiv Kumar Singh,
(5) Shila Devi and (6) Kiran Devi, who have already been substituted vide
order dated 16.06.2014.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted, that
preemption application filed by the father of respondent Nos.5 to 7 has
been allowed by the court of In-Charge, Deputy Collector, Land Reforms,
Sadar, Daltonganj in terms of order dated 29.12.1990 in Land Ceiling Case
No.39/1989-1990. Against the said order of D.C.L.R., petitioner preferred
L.C. Appeal No.18/1991-1992 before the court of Additional Collector,
Land Ceiling, Palamau, who after considering the case on merits,
dismissed the appeal on 22.10.1992. Thereafter, petitioner assailed both
the orders before the Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar vide Palamau
Case No.257/1992, which was dismissed for default on 14.08.1996 and the
restoration of the said application in Palamau Case No.257/1992 has also
been dismissed in terms of order dated 12.10.1996 passed by Member,
Board of Revenue, Bihar.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted, that the
Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar cannot dismiss a case in default, rather
if the parties are not cooperating, he has to pass an order on the basis of
the material available on record in view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Tutupalli Ramalinga Sastri Vs. Sri Yogananda
Lakshminara- Simhaswami Varu reported in (1983) 1 SCC 425 and
Balaji Steel Re-Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and
Customs reported in (2014) 16 SCC 360.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted, that apart
from this, the notice which has been issued on 02.02.2012 to the petitioner
by the court of Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sadar, Medininagar,
Palamau is also barred by law of limitation under Article 136 of the
Limitation Act in view of said order being a decree under Order 21 Rule
34 of the CPC and as such, the notice is also fit to be set aside.
Learned counsel for the respondents /State, Mr. P. C. Roy, S.C.
(L&C)-I has submitted, that though notice was issued to the private
respondents in terms of order dated 19.11.2019 and the same has been
validly served as per the office note dated 18.04.2022, but the respondent
no.5 namely Kuldeep Singh has died on 30.04.2014, as such, petitioners
may file substitution petition in this matter.
Under the aforesaid circumstances, learned counsel for the
petitioners has prayed for two weeks' time to file such application.
Put up this case after two weeks.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Jay/
