Jharkhand High Court
Smt. Moti Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 29 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
WP(C) No. 1835 of 2011
Smt. Moti Devi ..... ...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. .... .... Respondents
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondents-State : Mr. Mr. Sandeep Verma, AC to
Mrs. Vandana Singh, Sr. SC-III
For the Respondent No.5 : Mr. Sunil Kumar Mahto, Advocate
--------
The matter is being taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties
have no objection with it and submitted that audio and video qualities are good.
Order No.11/Dated: 29th November, 2022
IA No. 10528 of 2022
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner has submitted, that the instant interlocutory application has
been filed to substitute the legal heirs/successors of the petitioner, who died
on 08.02.2022 leaving behind her legal heirs/ successors i.e. (a) Aliyar Sah,
son of late Mangru Sao, (b) Bacha Sah, son of late Mangru Sao, (c) Ghurpati
Devi, wife of late Rajendra Sah, (d) Mahabir Sah, son of late Mangru Sao, (e)
Surendra Sah, son of late Mangru Sao and (f) Suchun Sah, son of late
Mangru Sao.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner has
further submitted, that the death certificate of the petitioner as well as
vakalatnama of the proposed legal heirs/successors have already been
brought on record.
Mr. Sandeep Verma, AC to Mrs. Vandana Singh, learned Sr. SC-
III appearing on behalf of the respondents-State as well as Mr. Sunil Kumar
Mahto, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 have no objection.
Accordingly, IA No. 10528 of 2022 is hereby allowed.
Office is directed to make necessary correction in the instant
writ petition.
WP(C) No. 1835 of 2011
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner has submitted, that the instant writ petition has been
preferred by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 31.07.2009 passed in
Board Case No. 01 of 2009 by the respondent No.2-Member Board of
Revenue, Jharkhand (Annexure-8), whereby the Member Board of Revenue,
Jharkhand without applying his mind and without deciding the merit of the
case remanded the matter to the LRDC, Nagar Untari for fresh disposal as per
law and the petitioner further prays to confirm the order dated 26.12.2002
passed in L.C. Case No. 02 of 2002-03 by LRDC, Nagar Untari as well as
confirm the order dated 27.10.2009 passed in LC Appeal No. 10 of 2006-07
by the Additional Collector, Garhwa containing in Annexure-5, which is
decided as per law by the both Court in favour of the petitioner considering
the spirit of Section 16(3) of the Bihar/ Jharkhand Land Ceiling Act, 1961
and passed the order in favour of the petitioner but the Member Board of
Revenue, Jharkhand without going through the merit of the case remanded
this case to the LRDC Nagar Untari for fresh disposal, which is bad in law.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Balaji Steel Re-Rolling
Mills v. CCE & Customs" reported in (2014) 16 SCC 360. Paragraph No. 13
of the judgment may profitably be quoted hereunder:
"13. Applying the principles laid down in the aforesaid case to the facts of
the present case, as the two provisions are similar, we are of the considered
opinion that the Tribunal could not have dismissed the appeal filed by the
appellant for want of prosecution and it ought to have decided the appeal
on merits even if the appellant or its counsel was not present when the
appeal was taken up for hearing. The High Court also erred in law in
upholding the order of the Tribunal."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has thus submitted that a
Tribunal cannot dismiss an application because of non-appearance. The
Tribunal can pass an order on the basis of materials available on record and,
as such, the impugned order is bad in law.
Mr. Sandeep Verma, AC to Mrs. Vandana Singh, learned Sr.SC-
III appearing on behalf of the respondents-State as well as Mr. Sunil Kumar
Mahto, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 have no objection.
In view of the submissions and the materials available on record,
the impugned order is bad in law, accordingly, the same is hereby set-aside.
On the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the parties are
directed to appear before the Member Board of Revenue on 15.12.2022, who
shall fix the case and decide the case on merits.
Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of with the
above observations and directions.
Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Member Board
of Revenue through FAX/Email.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Madhav/-
