AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Amareshwar Sahay, J.—Heard the Counsel for the parties and with their consent this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself without going into the merit of the claim of the petitioners.
As it appears that case No. 428/1984 and case No. 504/1986 were registered wherein prayer was made by the applicant that Plot Nos. 1320/425, 1353/425, 1328/425, 1351/425 and 1352/425 of Khata No. 36/71 area 1 acre, 17.68 acres, 2.50 acres, 2.10 acres and 2.50 acres respectively were held and possessed by him but in the recent survey the same was wrongly recorded in the name of the opposite parties and, therefore after canceling the name of the opposite parties from the record, khatian be prepared in the name of the applicant.
The Settlement Officer by his order dated 15/04/1996 contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition, passed an order directing that Plot Nos. 1320/425, 1353/425 and 1328/425 of Khata No. 36/71, total area 90 decimals, 7.62 acres and 2.66 acres respectively be recorded in the name of Chandra Mohan Mahto and Girdhari Mahto, both sons of Mochi Ram and Bishambhar Mahto, S/o Mangasai Mahto after canceling the name of opposite parties. Accordingly, the application for correction of the record of right was allowed in part.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a review petition before the Settlement Officer, but the same was rejected by order dated 11/04/2001 (Annexure-2/1) on the ground that the Settlement Officer had no power to review his own order and, therefore, the aggrieved persons may file appeal against the order impugned.
The petitioner after rejection of the prayer for review filed an appeal before the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur, Ranchi being Ranchi Survey Appeal No. 44/2001 but the said appeal was dismissed on 12/02/2002 on the ground that the review petition was rightly dismissed by the Settlement Officer. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application before the Commissioner for recall of the dismissal order but the same was also rejected on 02/ 12/2002.
From the facts stated above, it appears that except the Settlement Officer, who passed an order for correction in the record of rights by his order dated 15/04/1996, no appeal was filed and the matter was not examined on its merit by any other authorities. Even the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur, Ranchi has not entered into the merit of the claim of the petitioner since no proper appeal was filed before him against the order of the Settlement Officer.
It appears that the order as contained in Annexure-2 dated 15/04/1996 was passed by the Settlement Officer in exercise of the power u/s 89(1) of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act whereas Sub-section 2 of Section 89 provides that an appeal would lie against any order passed u/s 89(1) of the Act.
The petitioner did not file any appeal before the appellate authority against the order dated 15/04/1996 passed by the Settlement Officer rather he was prosecuting his remedy before the wrong forum by filing review petition etc.
Since the statutory appeal is provided u/s 89(2) of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act and, therefore, in my view, for the ends of justice the petitioner should be given liberty to file an appeal before the appellate forum against the order dated 15/04/1996 passed by the Settlement Officer.
Accordingly, this writ petition is being disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner that he may challenge the order dated 15/04/1996, passed by the Settlement Officer contained in Annexure-2 by filing an appeal before the appellate forum within a period of four weeks alongwith an application for condonation of delay. The Appellate Authority shall consider the desirability of condoning the delay in filing the appeal, in view of the fact that the petitioner was prosecuting his remedy before the wrong forum and before this Court for the last six years and, thereafter, shall proceed to decide the appeal on its merit after hearing the parties by an appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
With these observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.