RAM KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned AC to GA -2, appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 to 3 as also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 4 & 5.

(2.) The petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity and correctness of the order dated 13.11.2014 passed in Land Dispute Resolution Appeal No. 145 of 2012, by the respondent Divisional Commissioner, Gaya (Respondent No.3), as contained in Annexure -7 to the writ petition, whereby the petition filed on behalf of the petitioners for permitting them to deposit the costs awarded against them by order dated 13.02.2014 has been rejected.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that the petitioners had filed an application under Section 4 of The Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009 (In short 'Act, 2009') before the respondent D.C.L.R., Arwal for grant of appropriate reliefs with respect to the lands in question, which gave rise to Case No. 15 of 2012. The aforesaid case was finally allowed, after hearing the parties, by an order dated 12.06.2012 vide Annexure - 3. It is contended that the private respondents No. 4 and 5, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, preferred an appeal before the respondent Division Commissioner, Gaya, under Section 14 of the Act, 2009, giving rise to Land Dispute Resolution Appeal No. 145 of 2012. It is next contended that in response to the notice issued by the appellate authority, the petitioners appeared in that appeal and filed their show cause resisting the prayer made in the aforesaid appeal by the appellants therein, who have been impleaded as respondents no. 4 and 5 herein. It is further contended that on 13.02.2014, a petition for time was filed on behalf of the petitioners before the appellate authority. By order dated 13.02.2014, though time was granted, but with costs of Rs.3000/ - awarded against both the petitioners as also the respondents therein. According to him, for some valid justification, the costs awarded against the petitioners, could not be deposited on or before the next date fixed i.e. on 12.06.2014, as a result of which the case of the petitioners was closed by order dated 12.6.2014 and the same was adjourned for 13.11.2014. On the next date fixed, the petitioners filed a petition for permitting them to comply the order dated 13.02.2014 and thereby permit them to deposit the costs awarded against them, with a further prayer that the aforesaid appeal may be decided on merits, after hearing both sides, but by the impugned order dated 13.11.2014, the aforesaid petition filed on behalf of the petitioners has been rejected.