SHYAMA NAND PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was the 6th respondent in the writ petition. According to the counsel for the appellant the learned Single Judge has committed a serious error in directing for restoration of possession to the petitioner in the writ petition having held that the matter can only be settled in the civil court. Further it was pointed out that the order of cancellation passed by the S.D.O. is well within his jurisdiction since the land belongs to the Government. He also cited various decisions in order to substantiate his plea that the order of the S.D.O. is perfectly justified and the order of the learned Single Judge is not valid in law.

(2.) THERE is no dispute in the fact that Ashok Kumar Singh, the petitioner in the writ petition, was made as a tenant by the college authority in February, 2001 and he is paying rent from 15.02.2001. This order of allotment was subsequently cancelled on the application filed by the appellant, Shyama Nand Pandey, the 6th respondent, saying that he is prepared to pay the rent. On that basis the same was cancelled. To execute the order, he filed application before the S.D.O. with the prayer for putting him in possession. The S.D.O. passed final order directing the college authority to hand over the possession to the 6th respondent, appellant herein, by evicting the petitioner, 5th respondent herein.

(3.) AS Indicated above, the learned Counsel for the appellant would cite several authorities reported in : AIR2002SC206 (State of Bihar v. Jain Plastic and Chemicals Ltd.) and 1984 B.B.C.J. 615 (Registrar, High Court of Judicature at Patna v. Sub -Divisional Magistrate). We have heard counsel for the parties and gave our anxious consideration to the rival contention.