Jharkhand High Court
Ganesh Rawani vs Madhusudan Rawani @ Kishore Rawani on 13 October, 2023
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Civil Review No. 3 of 2020
------
1.Ganesh Rawani, S/o Sri Lakhi Rawani, Aged about-33 years.
2.Amar Rawani, S/o- Late Sadhan Rawani, Aged -32 years. Both resident of Ward No. 1, Village/Tola Rakbhon, P.O. & P.S. Jamtara & District-Jamtara.
Petitioner/Respondent Nos. 5 and 6
Versus
1. Madhusudan Rawani @ Kishore Rawani, aged about 63 years, S/o Late Biswanath Kahar @ Rawani, R/o Village Rajbari as well as Rakhbon, P.O. & P.S. Jamtara & District-Jamtara.
... Respondent No. 1/Petitioner
2. The State of Jharkhand
3. The Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, P.O. & P.S. Dumka, District-Dumka.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara, P.O. & P.S. Jamtara & District-Jamtara.
5. S.D.O., Jamtara, P.O. & P.S. Jamtara & District- Jamtara.
... Respondent Nos. 2-5/Respondent Nos. 1-4
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Asish Jha, Advocate Mr. Mohit Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Res-State : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III For the Res No. 1 : Mr. Ashutosh Pd. Joshi, Adv.
------
th
Order No. 07/Dated: 13 October, 2023
1. The instant application has been filed for review of order dated 21.11.2019 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 4343 of 2019. The issue before the writ Court was propriety of order dated 18.06.2019 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara in Rev. (Misc) Appeal No. 15/2018-19 by which ad interim stay granted on 23.10.2018 was recalled.
2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the review petitioners that the order dated 23.10.2018 was passed by 2 the appellate authority, by which ad interim stay of execution of order was passed by the Sub Divisional Court. Subsequent thereto the said order was recalled by the appellate authority himself by passing order dated 18.06.2019 by which the appellate authority vacated the stay and admitted the appeal.
3. It has been contended that the order dated 18.06.2019 was challenged before the revisional authority, however, since the revisional Court was not conducting the Court, due to non-availability of presiding officer, hence the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 4343 of 2019 was filed on the ground that that order dated 18.06.2019 passed without assigning any reason.
4. The writ Court having heard learned counsel for the parties quashed order dated 18.06.2019 passed by the appellate authority, which was the subject matter of revision before the revisioinal authority. Further, since the revision was already filed, the writ Court remitted the matter before the revisional authority.
5. Learned counsel for the review petitioner has submitted that after quashing order dated 18.06.2019, the revision application being before the revisional authority will be said to be rendered infructuous since the propriety of order dated 18.06.2019 was the subject matter before the revisional authority.
3
6. Learned counsel for the review petitioner in the aforesaid premise has submitted that the order dated 21.11.2019 passed in W.P. (C) No. 4343 of 2019 requires modification.
7. While on the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-State has opposed the prayer made in the instant review petition on the ground that order dated 18.06.2019 although was passed by the appellate authority, which was subject matter before the revisional authority, but merely because order dated 18.06.2019 was passed by the appellate authority and has been quashed by this Court to decide the issue afresh, it cannot be said that the revision has become infructuous since the things remains to be decided by the revisional authority on merit.
8. It has been contended that since the revision has already been filed against order dated 18.06.2019 and as such by quashing the said order revision cannot be said to be infructuous.
9. It has further been submitted that it also requires to be considered that the appellate authority has passed order on 23.10.2018 and subsequent thereto without assigning any reason the said order was recalled vide order dated 18.06.2019, hence, it would be just and proper to direct the revisional authority to decide the order dated 18.06.2019 on its own merit.
4
10. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across order dated 21.11.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4343 of 2019, which has been sought to be reviewed in the instant petition.
11. This Court after perusal of the pleading and order dated 21.11.2019 has found therefrom that both the order i.e., order dated 23.10.2018 and 18.06.2019 have been passed by the appellate authority. The order dated 18.06.2019 recalling the ad interim stay granted by way of maintaining status quo was challenged by the writ petitioner before the revisional authority. The ground for challenging the said order before this Court was that the Presiding Officer in the revisional forum was not available. Further ground was that since the ad interim order of maintaining Status quo was granted vide order dated 23.10.2018 so there was apprehension of dispossession from the land in question.
12. The writ Court on consideration of the aforesaid fact has quashed order dated 18.06.2019 with a direction to maintain status quo till passing of order by revisional authority.
13. From the pleadings available on record, it is evident that the propriety of order dated 18.06.2019 is pending before the Revisional Authority and it was not functional at the relevant point of time, the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 5 4343 of 2019 was filed. Now, the revisional authority is functioning. Therefore, it would be appropriate to recall part of order dated 21.11.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4343 of 2019 so far order of quashing of order dated 18.06.2019, which has been challenged before the revisional authority.
14. Accordingly, order dated 21.11.2019 passed in W.P. (C) No. 4343 of 2019 is hereby recalled to that extent only.
15. In view thereof, the revisional authority is directed to consider the propriety of order dated 18.06.2019 and pass appropriate order within a period of two months.
16. Accordingly, the instant review application stands disposed of.
17. It is made clear that till such decision is taken by the revisional authority, the status quo shall be maintained.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Alankar/-