Ahilya Devi & Ors vs Chhaku Bala Dasi & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 887 Jhar

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    [Civil Writ Jurisdiction]
                        W.P.(C) No. 4661 of 2006
      Ahilya Devi & Ors.                                .... .. ... Petitioners
                                Versus
      Chhaku Bala Dasi & Ors.                           .. ... ... Respondents
                            ...........

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO .........

       For the Petitioners              : Mr. D.C. Mishra, Advocate
       For the respondents              : None
                           ......
15/ 07.03.2022.

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. D.C. Mishra. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that writ petition has been preferred for quashing the order dated 28.03.2006, passed by the learned Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka in Title Revision No.22 of 1985, which has been preferred against the order dated 09.07.1985 passed by the Settlement Officer, Dumka in Title Appeal No.9 of 1983 whereby the order dated 04.10.1983, passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dumka in Title Partition Suit No.45 of 1979 has been affirmed, as such, petitioners have preferred the instant writ petition against all three orders/judgments passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dumka, Settlement Officer, Dumka as well as Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. D.C. Mishra has submitted that there is no finding with regard to fact that Bhujo Pal was son of Fulchand Pal one of the son of Kunjo Pal, as such, finding recorded by the courts below are bad in law and all three orders may be set aside.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. D.C. Mishra has submitted that since the Bhujo Pal is not the son of Fulchand Pal, as such, impugned order passed by the courts below are bad in law as the name of Bhujo Pal is not mentioned in the voter list of the Village.

Considering the submission of the petitioners, looking into the judgments passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dumka, Settlement Officer, Dumka as well as Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka whereby they have given concurrent finding, this Court cannot interfere with such finding. The courts below have already held that nothing has been brought on record by the petitioners, who were defendants before the courts below, appellants before the Settlement Officer and petitioners before the Revisional Court on

record to disbelieve that Bhujo Pal was son of Fulchand Pal accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same.

Accordingly, the instant Writ Petition stands dismissed.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) R.S.