Jharkhand High Court
Smt Pramila Devi And Other vs Collectariate on 10 September, 2012
Author: Narendra Nath Tiwari
Bench: Narendra Nath Tiwari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.3379 of 2012
Smt. Pramila Devi & Ors. ......... Petitioners.
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors. ......... Respondents.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI
For the Petitioners : Mr. Kalyan Roy, Advocate
For the State : J.C. to S.C. (L&C)
04/10.09.2012: The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 22nd February, 2010 passed by learned Special Officer in SAR Case No.111 of 200607, whereby the land of Khata No.50, Plot No.878, area 5 Kathas of village Hesal, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District Ranchi has been restored in favour of Respondent No.4Fagu Oraon, as also by order dated 7th March, 2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in SAR Appeal No.16 R 15 of 201011, dismissing the petitioners' appeal.
It has been submitted that against the said order, the petitioners have filed revision before the Divisional Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, being SAR Revision No.76 of 2012. But in spite of the prayer made by the petitioners, the said revision has not been taken up. The private respondent, in meanwhile, is proceeding to execute the order passed by the learned Special Officer, SAR. The property, in question, is the residential house of the petitioners. The land, in question, is Chhaparbandi and the provision of Section 71(A) of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act is not applicable. The petitioners have very good grounds of success in the said revision. If the petitioners are not protected in the meanwhile, they shall be ejected from their residential house and shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.
Learned J.C. to S.C. (L&C) appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 submitted that the matter is still pending before the Revisional Court and instead of pursuing the revision, the petitioners filed the writ application. There cannot be two parallel proceedings for the same issue in two Courts. The writ petition is, thus, not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
2 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the contentions of the parties. It has been admitted by both the parties that the said revision filed against the appellate order dated 7th March, 2012 is pending before the Divisional Commissioner.
The grievance of the petitioners is that though the revision is pending since long, the same has not been taken up till date. The petitioners require urgent interim order against execution of the impugned orders, as the property, in question, is residential house where the petitioners and their family members have been residing since several decades. The petitioners have no alternative remedy than to knock at the door of this Hon'ble Court.
Considering the above, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the Divisional Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur, Ranchi to expedite the hearing and dispose of the petitioners' revision being SAR Revision No.76 of 2012.
Until an interim order is passed or the said revision is disposed of (whichever is earlier), the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from their residential house, standing over the land, in question.
(Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.) Sanjay/