OM PRAKASH BAGARIA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application was preferred by petitioner against the demand made vide order dated 6th October, 2004 in Certificate Case No. 3 (Forest) 82-83.

(2.) Having noticed the submissions made by the parties, following order was passed by this Court on 3rd January, 2006 : "The petitioner has challenged Certificate Case No.3 (Forest)/ 82-83, pending in the Court of District Certificate Officer, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa on the ground that the authority has no jurisdiction to reopen the case which was closed on 19th/20th June, 1995. Learned counsel for the State relied on Section 63 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter to be referred as the P.D.R. Act) to suggest that the authority is empowered to re-open; and review its order, but such submission has been opposed by the counsel for the petitioner on the ground that no petition for review was filed. In the circumstances, counsel for, the State is allowed three weeks' time to file affidavit enclosing the copy of review application, if any filed under Section 63 of the P.D.R. Act and will give the registration/case number. He will also produce the original file on the next date. Place this case under the heading 'for orders' on 15 th February 2006. Until further order, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of Certificate Case No. 3(Forest)/82-83 pending in the Court of District Certificate Officer, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa. Let a copy of this order be handed over to learned S.C. II."

(3.) From the supplementary counter affidavit, it appears that the Certificate Case No. 3F/1982-83 was initially instituted on 27th July, 1982 by the then Certificate Officer, Dhalbhum, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West for realization of the certificate dues. It is alleged that the petitioner there after could not file any objection under Section 9 of the P.D.R. Act. A writ was preferred by the petitioner being CWJC No. 1078 of 1992(R) before the Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court, wherein petitioner was allowed to submit his objection before the Certificate Officer. Thereafter petitioner had filed objection under Section 9 of the P.D.R. Act on 13-4-1992 but later on the proceeding was closed. Thereafter the Certificate Holder submitted an application on 16-12-1995 for review of the order dated 19-6-1995/20-6-1995, whereby the proceeding was closed. In pursuant to the said application, earlier order was recalled and the certificate case was again initiated.