Jharkhand High Court
A. Maklu Marandi vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief ... on 17 April, 2018
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.7168 of 2012
1A. Maklu Marandi, W/o Late Sunder Murmu, R/o 16 Annas
Jamabandi Raiyats of Mauza- Kordiha No.32, S.C. Sukhjora,
P.O. & P.S. Jarmundi, Sub-Division & District- Dumka
2. Babulal Hansda S/o- Chhoka Hansda
3A. Babulal Soren, S/o Late Bhagat Soren, R/o 16 Annas
Jamabandi Raiyats of Mauza- Kordiha No.32, S.C. Sukhjora,
P.O. & P.S. Jarmundi, Sub-Division & District- Dumka.
4A. Amel Soren, son of Late Babulal Soren,
4B. Ramesh Soren, son of Late Babulal Soren,
Both R/o 16 Annas Jamabandi Riayats of Mauza- Kordiha
No.32, S.C. Sukhjora, P.O. & P.S. Jarmundi, Sub-Division &
District- Dumka.
5. Bablu Soren S/o- Bishan Soren
6A. Sokul Hansda, S/o Late Kamli Hansda,
6B. Shambu Hansda, S/o Late Kamli Hansda,
6C. Gayna Hansda, son of Late Kamli Hansda
All R/o 16 Annas Jamabandi Raiyats of Mauza- Kordiha No.32,
S.C. Sukhjora, P.O. & P.S. Jarmundi, Sub-Division & District-
Dumka
7. Girish Baskey S/o- Budhan Baskey
8. Paklu Tudu Widow of Pradhan Hansda
All-/16/-Annas Jamabandi Raiyats of Mauza- Kordiha No.-32,
S.C.-Sukhjora, P.O. & P.S.- Jarmundi, Sub-Division and District-
Dumka... ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand Through its Chief secretary Govt. of
Jharkhand, Nepal House, District- Ranchi.
2. Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, P.o. & P.s.
& District- Dumka.
3. Settlement Officer, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, P.o. &
P.s. & District- Dumka.
Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumka, P.o. & P.s. & District-Dumka
4. Bhairab Pande
5. Umesh Pande
6. Gauri Shankar Pande
Respondent No.-4 to 5 S/o- Late Ram Gobind Pande &
Residents of Village Kordiha, S.C. Sukhjora, P.o. & P.s.-
Jarmundi, Sub-Division & District- Dumka.
... ... Respondent Ist Set
7. Gopinath Ojha S/o- Late Binod Ojha, Pradhan of Village
Kordiha, S.C. Sukhjora, P.o. & P.s.- Jarmundi, Sub-Division
& District- Dumka.
... ... Respondent 2nd Set
8. Godo Soren, S/O Chaitan Soren.
9. Beta Soren, S/o Soge Soren.
10.Rasilal Soren, S/o Jiban Soren.
11.Tembo Hansda, S/o Dudhna Soren.
2
12.Deban Hembrom, S/o Lukhu Hembron.
13.Ramesh Hembrom, S/o Lukhu Hembron.
14.Jetha Hembrom, S/o Chatru Hembrom.
15.Saherda Dome, S/o Sukhdeo Doma
16.Babu Ram Soren, S/o Munshi Soren.
17.Bisu Das, S/o Basuki Das.
18.Chhota Pradhan Hansda, S/o Pogan Hansda.
19.Shiblal Soren, S/o Dalo Soren
20.Shital Soren, S/o Lukhi Ram Soren.
21.Chandmuni Pujhrain, W/o Ram Chandra Pujhar.
22.Chundra Hansda, S/o Chhota Hansdah.
23.Mathura Ojha, S/o Binod Ojha
Sl No.8 to 23 -/16/-Annas Raiyats of Village- Kordiha, S.c.
Sukhjora, P.o. & P.s.- Jarmundi, Sub-Division & District-
Dumka
... ... PROFORMA RESPONDENTS 3rd SET
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Mayank Mohit Sinha, Advocate For Resp. Nos.4 to 6 : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Senior Advocate Ms. Anjana Rana, Advocate
---
13/17.04.2018 Heard Mr. Mayank Mohit Sinha, counsel appearing for the petitioners.
2. Heard Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Senior counsel assisted by Ms. Anjana Rana, counsel appearing for the respondent nos.4 to
6.
3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
"For a direction for quashing the order dated 17.07.1998 (Annexure-
1) passed by the Settlement Officer, Dumka in settlement correction case no.-56 of 1996, the appellate order dated 15.6.12 (Annexure-3) passed by the commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka (Respondent No.-2) in R.M.R. No.-43/2000-01 whereby and whereunder the Respondent Authorities have rejected the petition filed by the petitioners for restoration of land as not maintainable although in Mc. Phersons settlement JB No.-7 and 8 measuring 23B-9K-16D, Mc. Pherson's J.B. No.-30 area 20B-2K-7D, Mc. Pherson's J.B. No.-
32 and 53 measuring 17B-5K-3D and MC. Phersons's Settlement No.-46 measuring 18B-10K-8D total area 79B-7K-14D stood recorded in the names of ancestors of petitioners and case record of RM Case 3 No.-III/22 of 1919-20 shows that 10B-18K-10D of land were shown to have been illegally purchased by one Mukhlal Upadyay and accordingly only that area of land was to be included with the lands of MC. Pherson's settlement JB No.-48 of mouza-Kordiha which was recorded in the name of Mukhlal Upadhyay, Pradhan with others but in the corresponding Gantzers settlement JB No.-41 prepared for MC. Pherson's settlement JB No.-48 instead of 10B-18K-10D of land, entire 79B-7K-14D of Mc. Pherson's JB No.-7, 8, 30, 32, 53 and 46 were included without any order by any Authority in the name of daughter of said Mukhlal Upadhyay whereby vast area of landed properties which were non-transferrable agricultural lands of the petitioners who are illiterate tribals has been grabbed by the ancestors of Respondents by playing fraud upon them and the Respondent Authorities have rejected the petition filed by the petitioners for restoration of land in contravention of provision of Section-20(5) of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949 by Regulation-I of 1969 whereby non-transferable agricultural lands which initially belonged to the petitioners who are tribal raiyats are legally entitled to restoration of all those lands."
4. Counsel for the petitioners by referring to the impugned order as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition submits that the impugned order is a non-speaking cryptic order and accordingly, on this short ground the impugned order is fit to be set-aside and the matter should be remitted back to the court of Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka to pass fresh speaking order in R.M.R. No.-43/2000-01.
5. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the 1st page of the impugned order deals with the submission of the petitioners. The 2nd page of the order deals with the submission of the respondents and in the 3rd page of the order, the submission of the respondents continues and thereafter, the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka has passed the following order:
4"After going through the documents filed by both the parties and going through the petition filed by the petitioners and written argument by both parties I find that on the grounds discussed above the petition is not maintainable and I reject the petition on above grounds."
6. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid order dated 15.06.2012 passed by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka appears to be non-speaking and accordingly, the same may be set-aside.
7. Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the petitioners have no case on merits and accordingly, the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka vide order dated 15.06.2012 has rightly dismissed the case of the petitioners.
8. Counsel for the respondents also submits that the names of the ancestors of the petitioners were neither recorded in Mc. Pherson's settlement nor in the Gantzer's settlement. Therefore, they do not have any case on merits.
9. However, so far as the point of the impugned order being non-speaking, the counsel for the respondents are not in a position to show any reasoning given by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka in the impugned order.
10. Counsel for the respondents-State Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, is also not in a position to show the reasoning in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka and is accordingly not in a position to counter the argument of the petitioner that the impugned order is a non- speaking order.
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and after going through the materials on record, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 15.06.2012 passed by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka in R.M.R. No.43 of 2000-01 is a non-speaking order and accordingly, the same cannot be sustained.
512. Accordingly, the impugned order is set-aside and the matter is remitted back to the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka to pass fresh order in R.M.R. No.43 of 2000-01 after hearing the counsel for the parties and after discussing the materials on record within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Pankaj A.F.R.