GOBARDHAN RAM Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD , Mr. Amreshwar Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Government Advocate for the State -respondents i.e. respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

(2.) NOBODY appears on behalf of. the respondent Nos. 5 to 8 although as would be apparent from the office note dated 21.1.1997 that respondent No. 5 had been served with notice and similarly, it would appear that by order dated 12.9.1997, respondent Nos. 6 to 8 had also been served with notice.

(3.) FROM the perusal of the writ petition it appears that the petitioner had to rush to this Court challenging the order dated 13.9.1992 passed by the Circle Officer and also the order dated 30.8.1993 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Garhwa whereby and whereunder he allowed the application for restoration filed by Babulal Korwa (respondent No. 5) and directed delivery of possession to be given to him in respect of Plot No. 488, Khata No. 8 comprising an area 2.43 acres. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner while passing the impugned order the Land Reforms Deputy Collector did not consider the points of law canvassed to the effect that the place where the land was situated i.e. Ranka, the provisions of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act did not apply inasmuch as it was not included as a Scheduled Area and in support of the aforesaid contention the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that he also raised the point of the bar of Limitation but that was also not considered by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Collector, Garhwa being an Appeal No. 196/93 -94. From a perusal of the order -sheet of the Appellate Authority as contained at Annexure 5, it is apparent that the matter was directed to be placed before the Deputy Commissioner by order dated 21.9.1993. According to the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner was not holding Court and therefore the appeal could not be heard and in the meantime, the petitioner apprehended that the orders of the Circle Officer in relation to delivery of possession would be effected and he would be dispossessed from the property. Acting upon such apprehension, the petitioner rushed to this Court and filed the present writ petition.