Jharkhand High Court
Baduruddin Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cont. Case (Civil) No. 214 of 2013
----
1. Baduruddin Ansari
2. a) Asma Khatoon
b) Maruf Ansari
c) Mubarak Ansari
d) Jeva Khatoon(Minor)
e) Salina Khatoon
3. Alim Sheikh
4. Wazuddin Ansari @ Wazuddin
5. Dost Mohammad Ansari
6. Yaar Mohammad Ansari
7. Hasina Bibi
8. Md. Sidik
9. Asgar Ansari
10. Md. Rahmutula Ansari
11. Md. Baidula Ansari
12. Md. Akbar Ali .............. Petitioners.
Versus
1 .The State of Jharkhand
2. Mr. Rajendra Pratap Sinha, Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa
3. Mr. Dinesh Oraon, Addl. Collector, Garhwa
4. Mr. Pramod Jha, Circle Officer, Garhwa
5. Mr. Michael S. Raj, Superintendent of Police, Garhwa ...............Opp. Parties
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
---
Through: Video Conferencing
--
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
For the Opposite parties : Mr. Prakash Chandra Roy, S.C (L&C)-I
---
11/04.03.2022 The deceased petitioner no 2 has been substituted and has entered
appearance through Vakalatnama as per learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.
Amit Kumar Tiwari. Reference may be made to the order dated 20 th December,
2021, which reads as under:
"Reference may be made to the order dated 18th October
2019 passed by the Coordinate Bench where the operative part of
the order dated 24th September 2018 passed in L.P.A. No. 149 of
2013 arising out of the judgment under offence dated 15th May
2012 passed in W.P.(C) No.2945 of 2003 has been quoted. The
operative portion of the order passed by the Writ Court is quoted
hereunder :-
"14. In view of discussions made above, I allow this writ
petition and quash Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. I
direct respondents to restore the lands having an area of
4.50 acres of lands pertaining to plot no.101 and 93 of
Khata no. 4 to the petitioners. I further direct that
respondents shall not interfere with the petitioners'
possession over the lands in question. However, I give
liberty to the respondents to file civil suit for declaration of
their title and recovery of possession or initiate a
proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms
Act before annulling the transfer and taking possession of
the land in question. In the facts and circumstances of the
case, I order that parties shall hear their own cost."
It appears that the learned Letters Patent Court has
modified the direction passed by the Writ Court in paragraph-7 of
the order dated 24th September 2018 which reads as under :-
"7. Status quo with regard to ownership and the possession
shall be maintained for a period of one month from today.
There shall neither be any transfer of the property, in
whatsoever format, by either of the parties to this
litigation or their legal heirs, nor will any charge be created
upon the property in question by the parties to this
litigation within a period of one month from today."
Opposite parties have through their show-cause filed on
3rd February 2020 stated that Original (Title) Suit No.181/2019
has been preferred before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-
I, Garhwa relating to the land situate in village Bishunpur, P.S.
Garhwa, District Garhwa bearing Khata No.04, Plot No.101 and
93, Area 8.30 Acres and 0.72 Acre respectively which was the
subject matter of the writ petition where the cancellation of
Jamabandi of the petitioners was under challenge.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that one of the
petitioners has died. He submits on instructions that possession
has not yet been restored.
As noted above, it however appears that the direction of
learned Writ Court regarding restoration of possession of the
petitioners was modified by the Letters Patent Court. However,
on the request of learned counsel for the petitioners to carry out
substitution of the deceased petitioner, three weeks' time is
granted.
List this case on 28th January 2022."
Since, it appears from perusal of the order passed in appeal by learned
Division Bench that the order of learned writ court stood modified in its operative
portion, the proceedings for initiation of contempt proceedings may not lie before
this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, seeks liberty to approach
the learned Division Bench against non-compliance of the order and judgment
passed by Letters Patent Court. It goes without saying.
The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
Jk/
