Mickel Tirkey ? Bichha & Anr. vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 19 November, 2014

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Mickel Tirkey ? Bichha & Anr. vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 19 November, 2014

Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar

                                        1

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   W.P.(C) No.1711 of 2010
       1. Mickel Tirkey @ Bichha
       2. Alphonse Tirkey                         ...   ...  Petitioners
                                Versus
       1. The State of Jharkhand
       2. The Circle Officer, Namkum
       3. Rajesh Tigga
       4. Adin Tigga                        ...  ... Respondent

    CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

       For the Petitioner      : Mr. Chandra Deo Singh Advocate                           
       For the RespondentState  : Mr. Lalan Kr. Singh, J.C. to G.P.I
       For the Respondent Nos. 3&4: Mr. J.J. Sanga, Advocate

06/19.11.2014

Challenging order dated 29.01.2007 and 22.02.2007 whereby, the Circle Officer, Namkum created Jamabandi in the name of the respondent nos. 3 & 4 in Mutation Case No. 2343 R(27)/200607 and Mutation Case No. 2482/R (27)/ 200607 respectively, the petitioners have approached this Court. It appears from the impugned order dated 22.02.2007 that on an application of the respondent nos. 3 & 4 which was accompanied with a sale deed, the impugned order has been passed. The petitioners were not given individual notices though, their names appeared in the revenue record.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 3 & 4 raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of availability of the alternative remedy of appeal/revision under the Bihar Tenants Holdings(Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that since this order has been passed in violation of rules of natural justice, this Court may entertain the writ petition and pass an 2 appropriate order. He has relied on a decision of this Court in "Smt. Katrina Toppo Vs. Matilda Urain & Others reported in 2004 (2) JCR 378 (Jhr).

4. Having considered the facts and the materials on record, I am of the opinion that though, the impugned order has been passed without giving individual notice to the petitioners, the petitioners can raise this objection before the appellate authority also. The provision under Section 15 of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 provides an efficacious remedy to the aggrieved person. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to approach the appellate authority by filing an appropriate application/petition within a period of six weeks.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that after the impugned order was passed by the Circle Officer, the respondent nos. 3 & 4 have tried to dispossess the petitioners from their land and a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. was also initiated.

6. In view of the peculiar facts, it is hereby ordered that till an order is passed by the appellate authority on an application of the petitioners/appellants seeking stay of the order passed by the Circle Officer, the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from land in question. The petitioners are at liberty to raise all the questions which have been raised in the present proceeding.

7. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Satyarthi/

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court