Md. Faizuddin vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 1339 Jhar

                              1

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     L.P.A. No.106 of 2020
                             With
                       I.A. No.5476 of 2020
                             ------
    1. Md. Faizuddin
    2. Md. Nezamuddin
    3. Serajuddin
    4. Enamuddin Mian                      ....   ....          Appellants
                                  Versus

    1. The State of Jharkhand
    2. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, P.O. + P.S. District: Palamau.
    3. The Additional Collector, Palamau, P.O. + P.S. District: Palamau.
    4. The Circle Officer, Chhatarpur, P.O. & P.S.: Chhatarpur, District:
         Palamau.
    5. Sheo Nandan Prasad Singh
    6. Suresh Prasad Singh
    7. Ram Naresh Singh                ....          ....   Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
                            ------
     For the Appellants     : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, Advocate
                            : Mrs. Kavita Singh, Advocate
     For the State          : Mr. Sharad Kaushal, AC to AAG-III
     For the Private Respondents : Mr.Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate
                            ------

    05/Dated: 27.03.2023

    I.A. No.5476 of 2020

    Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5

of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 18 days in preferring

this Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Heard.

3. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the

averments made in the interlocutory application, we are of the view that

the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause in preferring the

appeal within the period of limitation.

4. Accordingly, I.A.No.5476 of 2020 is allowed and delay of 18 days

in preferring the appeal is condoned.

L.P.A. No.106 of 2020

5. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of the

Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 17.12.2019

passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3380 of

2014, whereby and whereunder, the decision as has been taken by the

revenue authority for cancellation of the long running Jamabandi vide

order dated 11.06.2012, has been quashed and set aside.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants, at the outset, in

presence of learned counsel appearing for the respondents-writ

petitioners, namely, Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, has submitted that he is

only having the grievance so far as the legality and propriety of the

order is concerned that no liberty for declaration of right and title over

the land in question has been granted by the learned Single Judge.

It has been contended that now he is only confining his prayer

that if such liberty will be granted, he will not press the instant appeal.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-writ petitioners

as also the learned counsel appearing for the State, are having no

objection upon such submission.

8. Considering the aforesaid argument advanced on behalf of the

parties and taking into consideration the finding recorded by the learned

Single Judge in the impugned order, whereby and whereunder, the

learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that long running

Jamabandi cannot be cancelled in exercise of power conferred under

Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1995 and therefore, the

learned Single Judge has interfered with the impugned order passed by

the revenue authority by relying upon the judgment passed in the case

of Jitan Mahto & Anr. Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in

2004 (1) JLJR 718.

9. It appears from the ratio laid down by the Court in the case of

Jitan Mahto & Anr. Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (supra), wherein,

at paragraph-5 thereof that long running Jamabandi cannot be

cancelled, however, liberty was given to the respondent no.6 to go to

the Civil Court for adjudication of his right, title and interest in the

property.

10. This Court, therefore, is of the view that since the learned Single

Judge has interfered with the order passed by the revenue authority

dated 11.06.2012 mainly relying upon the order passed in the case of

Jitan Mahto & Anr. Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (supra), wherein,

also liberty was granted to the respondent no.6 to go to the Civil Court

for adjudication of his right, title and interest in the property, but no such

liberty has been granted, therefore, it would be in the ends of justice

that such liberty is also required to be granted to the appellants herein,

who were the private respondents in the writ petition, otherwise also a

person cannot be made remediless.

11. Considering the same, the order dated 17.12.2019 passed by the

learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.3380 of 2014 is modified to the

extent that appellants herein, private respondents in the writ petition,

will have liberty to go to the Civil Court for adjudication of their right, title

and interest in the property.

12. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of with the

aforesaid modification in the order dated 17.12.2019 passed by the

learned Single Judge.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Subhash Chand, J.)

Rohit/-