Jharkhand High Court
Domni Lohrain vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 8 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
WP(C) No. 5256 of 2019
1. Domni Lohrain
2. Gannshu Lohra ..... ...... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. .... .... Respondents
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vishal, Advocate
For the Respondents-State : Mr. Deepankar, AC to Advocate General
--------
th
Order No. 06/Dated: 8 August, 2022
The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for quashing the
order dated 23.12.2006 passed by respondent No.3-the Special Officer,
Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi in SAR Supplementary Case No. 110 of
1976-77, whereby and whereunder, the learned SAR Court has been pleased
to initiate proceeding under Section 265 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act,
1908, though the same issue has already been decided by the SAR Court in
SAR Case No. 110 of 1976-77 vide order dated 27.02.1980, whereby under
Section 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 the possession has been
restored in favour of ancestor of the petitioners, and the SAR Court has also
passed certain remarks with regard to the fraud in registered sale deed. The
order of the SAR Court dated 27.02.1980 passed in SAR Case No. 110 of
1976-77 has been affirmed by the appellate Court and also by the revisional
Court. Against the said order, the respondent Ravindra Prasad Singh has
preferred CWJC No. 816 of 1980 (R), which was also dismissed by a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in terms of order dated 07.06.1987. Thereafter,
the execution proceeding was decided and possession was given to the
ancestor of the petitioner Chotan Lohra in SAR Case No. 110 of 1976-77.
2. Mr. Vishal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners has submitted, that a suit has been filed before the learned Special
Sub-Judge, Ranchi vide Title Suit No. 30 of 1989 preferred by M/s Gupta
Chemical Industries a Partnership firm registered under the Indian
Partnership Act, having its registered office at Lalpur, Ranchi against Chotan
Lohra, Shibu Lohra and others. The said suit was decided in favour of the
plaintiff in terms of judgment dated 19.12.1989 and thus the ancestor of the
petitioners again filed SAR Supplementary Case No. 110 of 1976-77 and in
terms of order dated 23.12.2006, the Special Officer, Schedule Area
Regulation, Ranchi has passed an order that the petitioner-Chotan Lohra and
others were dispossessed from the said land and the legal title is in favour of
the opposite party-Ravindra Prasad Singh and others and they have not
adopted a wrong procedure to avail the said possession rather on the basis of
registered deed of patta mentioning therein that the land is not an agricultural
land and over the said land a house has already been constructed. Against the
impugned order dated 23.12.2006, the petitioners have come before this
Court.
3. Mr. Dipankar, AC to learned Advocate General has submitted,
that as per the case of the petitioners the first round of litigation vide SRA
Case No. 110 of 1976-77 has been decided in favour of ancestor of the
petitioners and execution was also in their favour. Learned AC to Advocate
General has further submitted, that every person has a right to challenge its
validity and authenticity of a registered document which was availed by the
respondent and the title suit was decided in favour of the respondent-plaintiff
vide Title Suit No. 30 of 1989, against which, the petitioners have legal
remedy of appeal but instead of availing the remedy of appeal, petitioners
have again filed SAR Supplementary Case No. 110 of 1976-77 which has
been decided against the petitioners. Learned AC to Advocate General has
further submitted that the petitioners are at liberty to avail the appellate
jurisdiction against the impugned order dated 23.12.2006 passed in SAR
Supplementary Case No. 110 of 1976-77 before the Deputy Commissioner,
Ranchi or he may avail the appeal before the appellate authority against the
judgment dated 19.12.1989 corrected by 09.05.1990 passed in Title Suit No.
30 of 1989, as such, the writ petition is not maintainable.
4. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and looking into
the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners have assailed the
impugned order passed by the Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation,
Ranchi which is appealable before the Deputy Commissioner.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.
6. IA No. 3056 of 2022 stands closed.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Madhav/-
