RAMDEO PRASAD SAHU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially the Land Reforms Deputy Collector has passed an order against the present petitioner and thereafter, an appeal was preferred before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, who dismissed the appeal on 25th March, 2004. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for restoration of the said order, which was also dismissed on 22nd April, 2004. Thereafter, revision application was preferred before the Board of Revenue by the petitioner and the Board of Revenue also dismissed the revision but a liberty was reserved with the petitioner to agitate the matter before the Deputy Commissioner and ultimately, the Deputy Commissioner passed an order dated 30th January, 2008 at Annexure 2 to the memo of petition, whereby, the order dated 25th March, 2004 has been affirmed and the appeal preferred by the petitioner was ordered to be dismissed. Therefore, the present writ petition has been preferred.

(2.) Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that basically the Deputy Commissioner has passed an order "dismissed for default" in an appeal, preferred by the petitioner, on 25th March, 2004. Because of this "dismissed for default", restoration application was preferred by the petitioner, which was also dismissed vide order dated 22nd April, 2004 and, thereafter, revision application was preferred before the Board of Revenue, which has permitted the petitioner to agitate the issues before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, and the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi affirmed the order of "dismissed for default" by the impugned order dated 30th January, 2008. Thus, it appears that without hearing the appeal has been dismissed, which was preferred by the petitioner against an order, passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ranchi.

(3.) Looking to the dispute between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 it appears that the appeal has not been heard on merits by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. Because of the absentism of the lawyer, one should not be allowed to suffer and, therefore, in the interest of justice. I hereby allow the application preferred by the petitioner for restoration and the order "dismissed for default", passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi dated 25th March, 2004 is hereby quashed and set aside as well as the order, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi dated 30th January. 2008 is also hereby quashed and set aside. The appeal preferred by the petitioner bearing Case No. 62-R 15/2002-03 is restored to its original file, with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) to be deposited by the petitioner, which is hereby directed to be withdrawn by respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Because much time has lapsed, I hereby direct the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, to expedite the hearing of the main appeal so that it can be disposed of as early as possible and practicable, preferably within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court, in accordance with law, rules, regulations, Government policies and the Government enforceable orders, applicable to the parties.