JHARKHAND STATE HOUSING BOARD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners -Board have challenged the order dated 23.1.1996, passed by the Charge Officer, Singhbhum Settlement, Jamshedpur, whereby in purported exercise of power under Sec. 90 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act (Hereinafter referred to be as the "Act" for the sake of convenience) allowed the application filed on 17.8.1988, by the respondent No. 4 and directed to revise the Khata and to prepare the same in the name of Respondent No. 4 in place of the Petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner in short is that Plot Nos. 1735 and 1736 corresponding to R. S. Plot No. 1831 under R.S. Khata No. 228 stood recorded in the name of Partu Mahato of village Dindli. The said lands of R.S. Plot No. 1831 under R.S. Khata No. 228 were acquired and settled with the Housing Board on 22.5.1965. Since the said Khata was wrongly prepared in the name of the respondent No. 4 an objection under Sec. 83 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act was filed by the petitioner in the year 1978 which was registered as Objection case No. 247 of 1978 and consequently the name of the respondent No. 4 was ordered to be dropped and accordingly the name of the respondent No. 4 was also removed from the said Khata and it was given to the Housing Board. It is asserted that no revision as provided under Sec. 89 of the Act or any suit under Sec. 87 of the Act, challenging the final publication on record of right was filed by any body and as such it became final. However, on 17.8.1988, after a lapse of about 11 years from the date of the order passed under Section 83 of the Act the respondent No. 4 filed an objection under Sec. 90 of the Act, with a prayer to revise the Khata of the Housing Board and to prepare the same in his name which was rejected by the Charge Officer, Singh -bhum Settlement, Jamshedpur in case No. 1988 -89 vide, order dated 23.9.1993. It is stated that another Charge Officer by order dated 23.1.1996, without even any notice to the Board or a chance of being heard wrongly and illegally without having any jurisdiction in the matter passed an order allowing the prayer of the respondent No. 4 and directed to prepare the Khata in the name of the respondent No. 4 in place of the Housing Board.

(2.) TWO separate counter affidavit have been filed. One on be half of the State and another on behalf of the respondent No. 4.

(3.) FROM the averments in the counter affidavit quoted above it is clear that the respondent -State has also supported the case of the petitioner.