Jharkhand High Court
Amrendra Kumar Tiwari vs State Of Jharkhand on 7 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 297 of 2021
Amrendra Kumar Tiwari --Appellant
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand.
2. Deputy Commissioner, Collectorate Building, Ranchi
3. Additional Collector, Collectorate Building, Ranchi
4. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ranchi
5. Circle Officer, Kanke Circle, Ranchi
6. Deputy Inspector General of Police Jharkhand ....Respondents.
7. Chandrika Tiwari
8. Narendra Kumar Tiwari
9. Jitendra Kumar Tiwari ---Performa Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan
Through: Video Conferencing
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Mohan Dubey, A.C to A.G
----
07/07.02.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The impugned judgment passed by the writ court reads as under:
"The present writ petition is taken up today through Video
conferencing.
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order
dated 8th January, 2021 (Annexure-16 to the writ petition) passed by the
Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi -- the respondent no.2 in Misc. Case
No.3/2017-18/TR 43/2017-18 DC TR 5 R 28/2017-18, whereby the said
respondent has cancelled the settlement made in favour of Indra Kumar
Tiwari and has also cancelled the demand running in his name with
respect to land of Khata No.91, Plot No.1424 measuring an area of 4.70
acres, village-Tender, Thana No.77, District-Ranchi entered at Volume
No.1, Page No.171 of Register-II. The petitioner has also made further
prayers related therewith.
Mr. Mohan Dubey, learned A.C. to A.G. submits that the petitioner
has efficacious remedy against the order dated 8th January, 2021 passed
by the respondent no.2 by filing appeal before the Commissioner, North
Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi and, hence, the present writ petition is not
maintainable at this stage.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering that
the petitioner has efficacious remedy of preferring appeal against the order
dated 8th January, 2021 passed by the respondent no.2 under the
provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, I am of view that the present
writ petition is not maintainable at this stage.
The petitioner is, however, at liberty to take aforesaid alternative
recourse against the order dated 8th January, 2021, as provided under the
law.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable
with aforesaid liberty."
3. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner/appellant has assailed the
impugned judgment on the following counts.
As per Section 2(e) which defines the power of Collector,
proviso to Section 4(h) in particular and Section 4A 'Revision' of Bihar
Land Reforms Act, 1950, appellant has not been left with any remedy of
appeal, since the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi has himself passed the
order, impugned in the writ petition, dated 8 th January, 2021 (Annexure-16)
cancelling the settlement made in his favour. In such circumstances, learned
Single Judge has erroneously relegated the petitioner to avail of alternative
remedy of appeal when no such appeal would lie if the original order has
been passed by the Deputy Commissioner himself. Learned counsel for the
appellant has relied upon the case of State of Jharkhand and others Vs.
Izhar Hussain reported in 2021(2) AJR 539: AIR Online 2020 Jha 1217
and also on the case of Sri Rama Prasad Singh & others Vs. The State of
Bihar & others reported in 1989 BLT (Rep.87).
4. Learned counsel for the State has straightway referred to Rule 4B
of Bihar Land Reforms Rules, 1951 inserted by Notification no. G.S.R 119
dated 15.11.1972, which reads as under:
"[4-B. Appellate authority under the proviso to Section 4(cc), the
first proviso to Section 4(h) and the proviso to Section 4(hh). - An
appeal against an order of the Collector under the proviso to clause
(cc) of Section 4, the first proviso to clause (h) of Section 4 and under
the proviso to clause (hh) of Section 4 shall lie, -
(i) if such order is passed by any officer below the rank of the
Collector of a district, to the Collector of district; and
(ii) if such order is passed by the Collector of the district, to the
Commissioner of the Division.]
He submits that the Rules provide that if the order has been passed
by the Collector of the District, an appeal would lie before the Commissioner of
the Division. The Hon'ble Single Judge had therefore relegated the petitioner to
avail of the appellate remedy. As such, the appeal is not fit to be entertained.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant therefore seeks permission to
withdraw the appeal in order to avail the appellate remedy before the
Commissioner of the Division against the order dated 8th January, 2021
(Annexure- 16) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi.
6. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. It is open
for the appellant to avail the appellate remedy as is permissible in law.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
jk/ (Deepak Roshan, J)
