RAM CHANDRA PRASAD SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties. The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned orders as contained in Annexure - 12 series as well as the orders as contained in Annexure -13 to 17 to the writ petitions. By Annexure -12 series, the L.R.D.C., Dhanbad, in exercise of the powers under Section 46 (4) (a) of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, passed an order for restoration of the lands in question in favour of the private Respondent no. 5, whereas by Annexure - 13 to 17, the Appellate Court, i.e. the Additional Collector, Dhanbad, has dismissed the appeals, filed by the petitioners against the orders as contained in Annexure - 12 series.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that alongwith the cases of the petitioners the L.R.D.C. by the same impugned order also passed an order for restoration of the land belonging to one Permanand Prasad Sinha and the said Permanand Pd. Sinha also filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, i.e. the Additional Collector, Dhanbad. The appeal filed by the petitioners were registered as C.N.T. Appeal No. 80, 82, 83, 85 and 86 of 2002 -03, whereas the appeal filed by the said Permanand Pd. Sinha was registered as C.N.T. Appeal No. 81/2002. The petitioners allege that though the case of the present petitioners as well as the case of the aforesaid Permanand Pd. Sinha was exactly similar in nature but the Appellate Court has adopted double standard in deciding the appeal of the petitioners vis -à -vis the appeal filed by Permanand Pd. Sinha. The Appellant Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, whereas he has allowed the appeal filed by Permanand Pd. Sinha and remanded the matter back to the L.R.D.C., Dhanbad to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Mr. L.K.Lall, learned S.C. (L & C) appearing for the State on verification of the records and after examining the facts involved in both the cases fairly submits that the case of the present petitioners as well as the case of Permanand Pd. Sinha were identical. On the facts narrated above, I find that the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners to be correct that the Appellate Court has adopted double standard in deciding the case of the petitioners vis -à -vis the case of Permanand Pd. Sinha. Accordingly, the orders contained in Annexure -12 series passed by the L.R.D.C., Dhanbad as well as the orders as contained in Annexure -13 to 17, passed by the Additional Collector, Dhanbad, are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the L.R.D.C., Dhanbad to consider the case a fresh and dispose of the case of the petitioners alongwith the case of Permanand Pd. Sinha, if not already disposed of, within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.