MADHUSUDAN RAWANI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the order dated 18.06.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara in Rev. (Misc.) Appeal No.15 of 2018/2019, by which, ad-interim stay granted on 23.10.2018 has been recalled.

(2.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a dispute arisen in between the petitioner and the private respondents about the title over the property in question, upon which, the petitioner is claiming on the basis of deed of adoption executed and registered by the adoption deed no.307 of 1959. The said dispute has been adjudicated by the Sub Divisional Officer under its revenue jurisdiction in Revenue Eviction Case No.04 of 2016/2017 disposed of on 28.07.2018, by which, the conclusion has been arrived at that the petitioner has got no relationship with the opposite party, private respondents herein as also not the khatiyani raiyat and as such, not entitled for transfer of the land in pursuance to the embargo as provided under Sections 20 and 42 of the Santhal Paragana Tenancy Act, 1949. The petitioner being aggrieved with the said order has preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner being RMA Case No.15 of 2018-2019. The appellate authority in the capacity of the quasi-judicial power conferred under the statute, after entertaining the appeal has issued notice to the opposite party and posted the case on 23.10.2018 vide order dated 08.10.2018/09.10.2018. On 23.10.2018, the appellate authority has passed an order of ad-interim stay of execution of order passed by the Sub Divisional Court as also restraining the piece of land which has been accepted by both the parties and the matter was posted on the next date i.e., on 06.11.2018. It has been contended that the parties have appeared, therefore, it was incumbent upon the appellate authority to decide the appeal on its merit but instead of deciding it, the order of stay passed on 23.10.2018, has been recalled as also, the appeal has been admitted and the matter was posted on 09.07.2019 vide order dated 18.06.2019.

(3.) Dr. Ashok Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Ashutosh Pd. Joshi, has submitted that the Deputy Commissioner has not discharged the quasi-judicial function, which he was to discharge without any biasness and by impartial adjudicatory authority since, according to him, when ad-interim stay had been granted on 23.10.2018 that can be vacated if there is any laches on the part of the petitioner but as would appear from the entire order-sheet as also from the annexure-4 series, nothing like that of has been referred and as such, appeal ought to have been decided by adjudicating the issue instead of vacating the stay that too without any reason before passing such order.