Dhanajay Manjhi & Ors vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 2273 Jhar

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                       (Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
                      W.P.(C) No. 3678 of 2007
                              ........

Dhanajay Manjhi & Ors.                           ..... Petitioners
                            Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Others                   ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
                             ............
For the Petitioners                 : Mr. Bhaiya Vishwajeet Kumar, Advocate
                                    : Mr. Manoj Kr. Sah, Advocate.
                                    : Mr. Krishna Kunal, Advocate
For the Respondents /State           : Mr. P. C. Roy, S.C.(L&C)-I
                               ..........
18/27.06.2022.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Bhaiya Vishwajeet Kumar assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah and learned counsel Mr. Krishna Kunal has submitted, that petitioners have preferred this writ petition, for quashing the order dated 30.09.1991 passed by learned Commissioner, Santhal Pargana, Dumka in Revenue Misc. Revision No.439/1984-1985 (Annexure-7) affirming the order dated 23.08.1982 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Santhal Pargana, Dumka in Revenue Misc. Appeal No.01/1981-1982 (Annexure-6) and confirming the order dated 26.02.1981 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda in Settlement Case No.01/1976-1977 (Annexure-5), on the ground that earlier the petitioners have preferred the writ petition before Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Patna vide C.W.J.C. No.4347/1992 in terms of order dated 04.09.1992, notice was directed to be issued to respondent Nos.6 to 53 of the said writ petition and status quo between the parties as exists on that day was granted, which has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted, that petitioners could not take any information about the case because learned senior counsel for the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No.4347/1992, Mr. Ram Chandra Jha has died and petitioners were under impression that their case has been admitted. Recently the petitioners inquired about the case from the concerned counsel, Mr. Ranjan Jha, then it was transpired that the writ petition has been dismissed on 09.08.1994 for non-compliance of an peremptory order dated 27.09.1993.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted, that pursuant to the status-quo order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Patna on 04.09.1992 in C.W.J.C. No.4347/1992 (Annexure-1), the petitioners are in possession over the land since the date of settlement.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted, that subsequently the writ petition, bearing C.W.J.C. No.4347/1992 has been dismissed because of non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 27.09.1993, whereby the petitioners were granted one month time to file substitution petition and Hon'ble Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Patna in terms of order dated 09.08.1994 has considered, the petition to be dismissed for default as against respondent Nos.8, 10, 13, 16, 17, 18, 24, 27, 28, 35, 40, 41, 48 and 50 vide Court's order dated 27.09.1993 and therefore in absence of substitution of legal heirs, the Courts have no option, but to dismiss the writ petition being not maintainable and thus writ petition was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the respondents /State, Mr. P. C. Roy, S.C. (L&C)-I has submitted, that counter affidavit has been filed on 11.03.2008 by the Circle Officer, Godda, para-6 of counter affidavit may profitably quoted hereunder:-

"6. That the then Sub-Divisional Officer vide his order dated 26.2.1981 on remand of the matter from the Court of the then Deputy Commissioner, Dumka to his court, opined that the lands of Village- Amar Kamat J.B. No.27 &29 were acquired under Section 15(a) of B.L.R. Act 1961 and were already settled with the landless J.B. Raiyats of the Mouza in question by Sub- Divisional Officer vide order dated 21.06.1976. An appeal preferred in the Court of the then Deputy Commissioner. The then Deputy Commissioner set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer and remanded the matter to the lower Court for local enquiry and the then Land Reforms Deputy Collector on 10.01.1981 conducted the local enquiry and as per Section 28 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act 1949 (Supplementary Provision). The Land Reforms Deputy Collector on enquiring found that all the settlees are landless poor person belonging to

Harizan and backward communities and are privileged persons. The significant issue of this episode is that the then Sub- Divisional Officer while settling the land, personally made local enquiry of the spot and approved the proposal of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector regarding settlement of the lands in question. The order of the then Sub-Divisional Officer was passed on 26.02.1981 and thereafter the then Deputy Commissioner, Dumka up held the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer and the then learned Commissioner in R.M.R. No.439/84-95 also affirmed the judgment".

Under the peculiar circumstances, since the writ petition, C.W.J.C.

No.4347/1992 has been dismissed because of abatement against the legal heirs of respondent Nos.8, 10, 13, 16, 17, 18, 24, 27, 28, 35, 40, 41, 48 and 50 in terms of order dated 09.08.1994 and being such position the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable as no steps have been taken for restoration of C.W.J.C. No. 4347/1992, which stood dismissed in lack of legal heirs of the respondents. Now after 30 years the same cannot be initiated, as the petitioners have other legal avenues to raise their grievances.

Accordingly, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Jay/