PRAMOD KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is taken up today through Video conferencing. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the defects as pointed out by the office are ignored. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing order dtd. 22/10/2021 (Annexure-14 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 3 in SAR Case No. 481/2006-07 by which the land appertaining to Mouza-Hatma, Thana No. 200, Khata No. 33, Plot Nos. 824, 825, 826 and 1010 have been ordered to be restored in favour of the respondent no. 4 - Moti Khalkho under the provisions of Sec. 71-A of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 primarily on the ground that the said land was converted into "Chhapparbandi" in the year 1934 and no permission was taken from the respondent no. 2 - the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, whereas the approval of the respondent no. 2 was essential till the year 1938 and hence, the conversion of land into "Chhapparbandi" became irrelevant. The petitioners have further prayed for restraining the respondents from taking any coercive measures against them in pursuance of impugned order dtd. 22/10/2021 since they have been residing over the respective plots of land for last several decades and that the said order passed by the respondent no. 3 is palpably illegal particularly keeping in view that the conversion of the said land into "Chhapparbandi" in the year 1934 could not have been questioned by the said respondent while deciding the application under Sec. 71-A of the CNT Act.

(2.) Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the impugned order dtd. 22/10/2021, submits that the application preferred by the respondent no. 4 under Sec. 71-A of the CNT Act was itself not maintainable being barred by limitation and hence, the respondent no. 3 should not have entertained the said application at all. Moreover, the respondent no. 3 in the impugned order dtd. 22/10/2021 has accepted the fact that the land was converted into "Chhapparbandi" in the year 1934 and that being the admitted position, the application filed by the respondent no. 4 invoking Sec. 71-A of the CNT Act was not maintainable. Since the impugned order dtd. 22/10/2021 passed by the respondent no. 3 in SAR Case No. 481/2006-07 suffers from jurisdictional error, the petitioners instead of preferring statutory appeal before the respondent no. 2, has directly invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

(3.) Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned GA-III appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 3, at the outset submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of efficacious remedy of appeal being available to the petitioners against the order dtd. 22/10/2021 passed by the respondent no. 3. Otherwise also, the petitioners may take the aforesaid grounds to assail the order passed by the SAR Court before the appellate authority i.e., the respondent no. 2.