Jharkhand High Court
Salauddin Ansari vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 27 April, 2016
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (C) No. 5457 of 2002
...
Salauddin Ansari ... ...Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
1. State of Jharkhand
2. The Circle Officer, Dhurki, Garhwa
3. Sayad Ali ... ...Respondents
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
...
For the Petitioners : - M/s R. R. Tiwary, Adv.
For the Respondents :- JC to SC-I
...
09/27.04.2016Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
Respondent no. 3 has entered appearance through his counsel on notice, but no counter affidavit has been filed on his behalf nor anyone appears today to represent him.
Issuance of Basgit Parcha to the respondent no. 3 vide order dated 25.12.1999, Annexure-3 passed by the Circle Officer, Durki in Basgit Parcha Case No. 05/1999-2000 in respect of an area of two decimals of land, Plot No. 445/1, Khata No. 7, Village and PS- Dhurki, District-Garhwa under the provisions of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 is assailed by the petitioner on the ground that no notice has been issued to him in teeth of the provision of Rule 5 of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Rules, 1948 though he is interested party, who is owner of three acres of land comprising several plots and khatas including the said sub plot of plot no. 445.
Annexure-1 is rent receipt enclosed in support of the aforesaid contention. It is contended that when subsequent rent receipts issued in the year 2002, Annexure-2, the area was reduced to 2.98 acres whereafter petitioner enquired from the office of Circle Officer, Dhurki and came to know of issuance of Basgit Parcha in the name of Sayad Ali in respect of two decimals of land under the ownership and title of the petitioner. Order sheet dated 28.10.1999 also reveal that only general notice was issued for filing objection instead of issuance of specific notice to the land owner, who is interested party in terms of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1948. Therefore, interference is sought for.
Respondent State in their counter affidavit defended the impugned order and submit that after compliance of the provisions of Rule 5(1) of the Rules of 1948 upon general notice when no objection was made, upon consideration of the report of Circle Inspector, Basgit Parcha has been issued in favour of the private respondent under the provisions of the Act of 1947. There is no violation of principle of natural justice. Petitioner has avoided to invoke the remedy of revision available before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 21 and 22 of the Act of 1947. Therefore, no interference may be accorded.
After considering rival pleas of the parties hereinabove, this Court is of the opinion that it would only be proper for the petitioner to invoke revisional jurisdiction of the Collector in terms of Section 21 of the Act of 1947 where the correctness, legality or arbitrariness of the order passed upon issuance of Basgit Parcha on the aforesaid ground can be considered on the specific ground urged by the petitioner to challenge the same. The Collector would be in a position to examine from the relevant record regarding correctness and legality of impugned Basgit Parcha and whether notices were duly served in compliance of Rule 5 of 1948 Rules. Therefore, without making any comments on merits of the case, the petitioner is relegated to approach the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa within a period of four weeks with a revision application.
Needless to say, the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa, on receipt thereof, would consider the same in accordance with law after due opportunity to the affected parties including the respondent no. 3, beneficiary of Basgit Parcha and decide the matter within a reasonable time preferably within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Kamlesh/