Jharkhand High Court
Shital Bedia (Aged About 44 Years) Son Of ... vs Deputy Commissioner on 1 August, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
( 2025:JHHC:21355 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
CMP No. 775 of 2024
With
I.A. No. 8289 of 2025
With
I.A. No. 9597 of 2024
1. Shital Bedia (aged about 44 years) son of Bhikhari Bedia
2. Ketra Bedia (aged about 44 years) son of late Gopal Bedia
Residents of village-Kadru, P.S. Patratu, P.O. Barkakana, Dist.
Ramgarh ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh (now Ramgarh) P.O. and P.S.
Ramgarh, Dist. Ramgarh
2. The Deputy Chief Engineers (Const.) East Central Railway, P.O.
Barkakhana, P.S. Patratu, Dist. Ramgarh ..Respondent/Opp. Parties
3. Langra Bedia (deleted vide order dated 01.08.2025)
Sohan Bedia (aged 43 years) son of late Langra Bedia
4. Birja Bedia, son of Jivan Bedia
5. Bihari Bedia (deleted vide order dated 01.08.2025)
5(a) Most. Bundo Devi
5(b) Diman Bedia
6. Phulman Bedia
7. Jitu Bedia
3 To 7 are residents of village-Kadru, P.S. Patratu, P.O. Naya
Nagar, P.O. Barkakana, Dist. Ramgarh ...
Proforma Respondent/Opp. Parties
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Mitul Kumar, Advocate
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mrs. Niki Sinha, Advocate
For the O.P. No. 1 : Mr. Vishal Kumar Rai, A.C. to G.A. IV
---
07/01.08.2025 Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that I.A. No.
8289 of 2025 has been filed for substitution of deceased opposite party
nos. 3 and 5.
2. He has submitted that notices were issued and as per office
note, the notice has been validly served upon the proposed legal heirs
and successors through themselves or their close relatives. He submits
that the notice be accepted as validly served and substitution be
allowed.
3. The notice upon the proposed legal heirs and successors of
opposite party no. 3 and 5 is accepted as validly served.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have no objection, so
far prayer for substitution is concerned.
5. Considering the aforesaid submissions and having gone through
the substitution petition, I.A. No. 8289 of 2025 is hereby allowed.
6. Counsel for the petitioners is directed to delete the names of
opposite party no. 3 and opposite party no. 5 from the cause title and
insert the names of their legal heirs and successors in red ink during
the course of the day.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is
delay of 730 days in filing the petition for restoration of the First
Appeal. He has submitted that the order was passed on 09.12.2020 for
removal of defect but the defect could not be fully removed. He has
also submitted that at that relevant point of time there was Covid-19
situation. He has also submitted that the First Appeal including the
present First Appeal arise out of the common judgment and a few of
the First Appeals have also been disposed of.
8. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has no serious
objection with regard to condonation of delay and they do not dispute
that under similar circumstances the petition for restoration have been
allowed and some of the First Appeals have already been disposed of
by this court.
9. Considering the aforesaid submissions and being satisfied with
the cause shown, I.A. No. 9597 of 2024 seeking condonation of delay
in filing petition for restoration of FA No. 174 of 2018 is hereby
allowed and the delay is condoned.
CMP 775 of 2024
10. This petition has been filed for restoration of First Appeal No.
174 of 2018 which stood dismissed on 04.07.2022 for non-compliance
of order dated 09.12.2020. He has submitted that on account of Covid-
19 situation and also on account of non-filing of the certified copy of
the impugned order, the First Appeal was dismissed. He has further
submitted that the batch of First Appeals were disposed of including
F.A. No. 176 of 2018 vide judgment dated 25.03.2025 and the case is
squarely covered vide judgment passed in F.A. No. 176 of 2018.
11. The learned counsel for the opposite parties do not dispute the
aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners,
however the counsel has opposed the prayer for restoration.
12. At this, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that
the matter arises out of land acquisition proceedings and the appellants
are very poor persons and they are otherwise entitled for similar
treatment as that of other persons and if the First appeal is not
restored, they will suffer irreparable loss and injury.
13. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of this case and being
satisfied with the cause shown in the CMP, the First Appeal No. 174
of 2018 is restored to its original file.
14. The First Appeal No. 174 of 2018 is directed to be listed under
appropriate heading on 06.08.2025 in the supplementary cause list.
15. The records of F.A. No. 176 of 2018 be placed along with First
Appeal No. 174 of 2018.
16. This CMP is accordingly disposed of.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit
