[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Etta Oraon vs State Of Jharkhand Represented Through ... on 2 December, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:36083
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 883 of 2025
------
Etta Oraon, son of Late Mahgu Uranw, resident of Ward No.1, Village Uska
Kala, P.O. Bhojpur, P.S. Nagar Untari, Palhe Kalan, District Garhwa
.... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand represented through the Deputy Commissioner,
Garhwa, having its office at Collectoriate Building, Garhwa, P.O. and P.S.
Garhwa, District Garhwa
2. Sub Divisional Officer, Nagar Untari, having its office at Nagar Untari,
P.O. and P.S. Nagar Untari, District Garhwa
3. Land Reform Deputy Collector, Nagar Untari, having its office at Nagar
Untari, P.O. and P.S. Nagar Untari, District Garhwa
4. Circle Officer, Nagar Untari, having its office at Nagar Untari,
P.O. and P.S. Nagar Untari, District Garhwa
5. Divisional Forest Officer, North Forest Office, Garhwa, P.O. and P.S.
Garhwa, District Garhwa .... .... .... Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, Advocate
Mr. Ranjit Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG III
Ms. Rishi Bharti, A.C. to A.A.G. III
------
Order No.04 / Dated : 02.12.2025
Instant civil miscellaneous petition has been filed under Article 227
of the Constitution of India by the plaintiff/appellant for being aggrieved by
the order passed in Civil Appeal No.16 of 2022 by District Judge- II, Nagar
Untari, Garhwa by which the petition under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC
to adduce into evidence the R.S. Khatiyan and original information obtained
from the Settlement Officer, Palamau under Right To Information Act, has
been rejected.
2. Plaintiff/petitioner claimed title over the land on the basis of the
settlement made by the State, whereas the State claims it to be a forest land.
3. Learned trial Court rejected the petition filed under Order XLI Rule
27 of the CPC on the ground that the petitioner had failed to made the
mandatory condition mentioned under Order XLI Rule 27(a) and (aa) of the
CPC for adducing additional evidence.
4. It is mainly contended on behalf of the petitioner that photocopy of
2025:JHHC:36083
Khatiyan bearing R.S. Khata No.135, Plot No.01, Area 27.65 acres was filed
by the petitioner in the trial Court which will be evident from the judgment
at Para 9, but the same was not marked and exhibited which will be
apparent from Page 15 of the judgment passed by the trial Court.
5. Learned counsel on behalf of State has failed to dispute the factual
assertions made on behalf of the petitioner.
6. From perusal of the impugned judgment, it is apparent that the said
document had been filed before the trial Court, but it was not formally
proved and consequently, was not exhibited. Under the circumstance,
learned first appellate Court fell in error to hold that the condition under
Order XLI Rule 27(a) of the CPC was not fulfilled. Petitioner is permitted to
bring on record the certified copy of the said R.S. Khatiyan before the
learned first appellate Court.
Civil Miscellaneous Petition is accordingly, allowed. Pending
Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Anit
Uploaded
04.12.2025
