Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ... vs Sahadat Hussain on 23 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)
------
LPA No. 510 of 2022
-------
The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Government of
Jharkhand having its office at 1st Floor, Project Building, Ranchi, PS
Jagannathpur, District Ranchi ... ... Appellant
Versus
1. Sahadat Hussain, son of late Abdul Hakim, resident of Village-Asahana,
PO + PS Kunda, District Deoghar, presently resides at Mohalla- Purandaha,
Muslim Tol, PO Purandaha, PS+ District Deoghar, Jharkhand.
... ... Respondent No.1
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, PO + PS+District- Deoghar
3. The Additional Collector, Deoghar, PO +PS+District Deoghar
4. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Deoghar, PO+PS+District Deoghar
5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar, PO +PS+District Deoghar
... ... Proforma Respondents
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General;
Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, L&C-1
Mr. Piyush Chitresh, AC to AG
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. K.K.Ojha, Advocate;
Mr. Pramod Kumar Jha, Advocate
------
JUDGMENT
23rd January 2023
Per, Shree Chandrashekhar,J.
The State of Jharkhand has challenged the legality and propriety
of the order dated 21st September 2022 passed by the writ Court in a writ
petition filed for a claim for compensation in lieu of the lands which
according to the writ petitioner were acquired for construction of Airport at
Deoghar.
2. As we have recorded in the order dated 5 th January 2023, the
following prayer has been made in the writ petition:
"That, this writ application is being filed for issuance of an
appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in the
nature of Mandamus commanding and directing upon the
respondents to pay the compensation amount of the land of the
petitioner situated at Mouza- Asahana No.606. Jamabandi No.12,
Dag No.01 which had been settled in the name of his father under
'Amalnama' dated 05.06.1938, by the learned Court of the
SubDivisional Magistrate, Deoghar in Settlement Case No.38 of
1938-39 on dated 30.05.1940 and since then cultivation is going
upon this land after paying rent but the same has been acquired by
the Government for the purpose of extension of Airport without
giving any prior notice, which is illegal, malafide and
unconstitutional."
3. The writ petitioner who is the respondent No.1 in the present
Letters Patent Appeal seems to have raised a claim for compensation on the
basis of the orders passed by the revenue authorities and the consequent rent
receipts issued to him or to his ancestors. However, there is at least a
reference of one order by which the claim of the petitioner being raiyat of the
lands comprised under Plot No.1, Mouza Asahana No. 606, P.S. Kunda
within Sub-Division of District Deoghar, ad-measuring 1.93 acres, has been
rejected by an order dated 6th/7th September 2016 in Revenue Miscellaneous
Case No 10 of 2016-17.
4. The writ Court invited objection from the State of Jharkhand
which put forth its stand through the affidavit filed by the Circle Officer
which was found wanting in certain details. The writ Court, however, took
exception to the Circle Officer, Deoghar expressing a doubt over the order
passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar and that seems to have
brought annoyance to the writ Court. While so, a notice was issued to the
Chief Secretary of the State of Jharkhand to file his personal affidavit as to
consider; "how such order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar has
been declared as fake and myth by the Circle Officer, Deoghar who is
admittedly subordinate to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar and if such
affidavit is bad in law, the said officer must be prosecuted in accordance with
law".
5. From a glance at the order dated 21st September 2022, we gather
that the writ Court thought that the affidavit filed by the Chief Secretary did
not address the issue flagged by the Court and, therefore, proceeded to make
disparaging comments against the Chief Secretary running into several pages
which have been objected to by the State of Jharkhand by filing the present
Letters Patent Appeal.
6. At once, what comes to the mind of the Court is whether the writ
Court has confined itself to the pleadings of the parties or gone beyond the
controversy which has been brought before the Court by the respondent No.1.
It is well-settled in law that the writ Court in exercise of its powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall confine itself to the pleadings of
the parties and the prayers made therein. The general laws that the Court
should not go beyond the pleadings of the parties and grant relief which is
not even prayed for are generally followed in the writ proceedings. It is
the duty of the writ Court to examine the matter to find out whether or not a
prima facie case has been made out by the petitioner for grant of the
prayer(s) made by him. The next step in the process of adjudication is that the
writ Court shall invite affidavit(s) from the respondent(s) to find out whether
the pleadings by the petitioner are correct and if any relief can be granted to
the aggrieved party. Thereafter, the next step shall be to examine whether the
prayer(s) if granted by the Court would be against public policy and have
cascading effect in the system. It is, therefore, essential for the writ Court
while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
which powers are though plenary in nature and must be exercised in a
judicious manner, to have always in mind that a writ can be issued only in
furtherance of the public good.
7. Having gone through the order dated 21st September 2022, we
have no doubts in our mind that the writ Court has travelled too far beyond
the pleadings of the parties and the prayer made by the respondent No.1.
8. The learned Advocate General has submitted that the comments
made by the writ Court in its order dated 21st September 2022 has no relation
with the prayers made by the respondent No.1. It is further submitted that
notwithstanding that the writ petition itself is not maintainable, any comment
made in a judicial proceeding may have serious civil consequences flowing
to the officer concerned.
9. To buttress the aforesaid submissions, the learned Advocate
General has submitted that it is required of every Court to find out whether
there is any evidence on record justifying the remarks and whether it is
necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to
animadvert on that conduct.
10. True, the judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature, and
should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve.
11. In "A.M. Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta" (1990) 2 SCC
533 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
"13. Judicial restraint and discipline are as necessary to the
orderly administration of justice as they are to the effectiveness of
the army. The duty of restraint, this humility of function should be
constant theme of our judges. This quality in decision making is as
much necessary for judges to command respect as to protect the
independence of the judiciary. Judicial restraint in this regard
might better be called judicial respect, that is, respect by the
judiciary. Respect to those who come before the court as well to
other co-ordinate branches of the State, the executive and the
legislature. There must be mutual respect. When these qualities fail
or when litigants and public believe that the judge has failed in
these qualities, it will be neither good for the judge nor for the
judicial process."
12. The aforesaid being the position in law, we are in complete
agreement with the learned Advocate General that the order dated
21st September 2022 warrants interference of this Court.
13. We order accordingly.
14. The order dated 21st September 2022 is hereby set-aside.
15. LPA No. 510 of 2022 is allowed.
16. Mr. K.K.Ojha, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1
submits that may be the writ petition prima facie does not appear
maintainable, still, the same may be left for a decision by the writ Court. In
this context, we find that in the order dated 5 th January 2023 we have
indicated that the writ petition itself may be withdrawn before the Division
Bench for a final decision. The aforesaid submission has been made by the
learned counsel for the respondent No.1 in the context of the said order dated
5th January 2023.
17. Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, the learned State counsel has not seriously
opposed the aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the respondent No.1.
18. Accordingly, we leave it to the parties to contest WP(C) No.1041
of 2019 before the writ Court.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated:23rd January 2023
Soumya/Nibha-NAFR
