Jharkhand High Court
Subal Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 18 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
[Civil Writ Jurisdiction]
W.P.(C) No. 2641 of 2009
Subal Devi .... .. ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. .. ... ... respondent(s)
...........
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
.........
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shiv Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the respondent(s)/State : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, SC [L&C]-I
Mr. N. K. Pandey, AC to SC [L&C]-I
......
06/ 18.07.2022. Heard, Mr. Shiv Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on the
instruction of Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ratnesh
Kumar, learned SC [L&C]-I for the State assisted by Mr. N. K. Pandey, learned AC
to SC [L&C]-I.
It appears that the petitioner has preferred the instant Writ Petition for
quashing of the order dated 12.02.2008 (Annexure-2) passed by the Additional
Collector, Ranchi in Dakhil Kharij Punarikshan Case No.01 R- 15 of 2007-2008.
Mr. Shiv Kumar Singh, learned counsel in support of his submission has
relied upon Section 16 of the Jharkhand Tenants Holding [Maintenance of Record)
Act, 1973 and has may profitably be quoted hereunder :-
"16.Revision- The Collector of the district may, on an application made to him in
this behalf or for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety
of any order made under this Act or the rules made thereunder by any authority
or officer call for and examine the record of any case pending before or disposed
of by such authority or officer and pass such order as he thinks fit:
Provided that the Collector shall not entertain any application from any
person, aggrieved by any order, unless it is made within thirty days from the date
of the order;
Provided further that no order modifying, altering, or setting-aside, any
order made by such authority or officer shall be passed by the Collector unless
the parties concerned have been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard."
Mr. Shiv Kumar Singh, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed
by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court in the Case of Yugal Kishore Prasad & Anr.
vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors, reported in 2022 (1) JLJR 657 whereby, after
considering the relevant facts, the order passed by the Additional Collector has been
set aside.
Mr. Shiv Kumar Singh, learned counsel has further submitted, that the
revenue authority cannot decide the title, rather they have to decide possession only
followed by issuance of rent receipt, which they have failed to do, as such, the order
dated 12.02.2008 (Annexure-2) passed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi in Dakhil
Kharij Punarikshan Case No.01 R- 15 of 2007-2008 may be set aside by this Hon'ble
Court.
Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, learned SC [L&C]-I for the State assisted by Mr. N. K.
Pandey, learned AC to SC [L&C]-I. has submitted, that though the Additional
Collector, Ranchi, has passed the order contrary to Section 16 of the Act, 1973, but
he has passed the order on the basis of finding given in Title Suit No.34/1984, which
was decided in favour of Jagai Mahto, the predecessor-in-interest of Karno Mahato
and others, as such, this Court may consider the same.
Considering the same, let notice is be issued upon the private respondent
Nos.5 to 7 :-
5. Karno Mahto, S/o Late Rama Mahto
6. Niranjan Mahto, S/o Late Rama Mahto
7. Shyam Nath Mahto, S/o Late Jago Mahto
[All Resident of Village- Dargadih, P.S. Shonhatu, District- Ranchi,]
under the Speed Post, for which, requisites etc., must be filed by Friday i.e.
22.07.2022.
Put up this case after service of notice.
Office is directed to track the speed post delivery.
In the meantime, operation of the impugned order dated 12.02.2008
(Annexure-2) passed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi in Dakhil Kharij
Punarikshan Case No.01 R- 15 of 2007-2008 shall remain stayed.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Sandeep/
