Mahesh Ram vs State Of Jharkhand

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

This writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 21.02.2024 passed by Additional Collector, Palamau in Miscellaneous Case No.78/2008-2009 whereby proceeding initiated to look into the charge of obtaining the order dated 24.09.2012, on a forged compromise was dropped.

Kodu Mahra and Bachan Mahra claimed to have acquired lands in Village Murma, P.S. No.168, Khata No.87, Plot No.200, area 1.38 acres by virtue of registered sale deed bearing no.9499 dated 14.12.1977. The land was duly mutated in their names in 1977-78 and since then they had been paying rent to the State.

Jamua Devi wife of Kodu Mochi purchased 1.38 acres of land on 03.06.1982 executed by Most. Rajmatiya Lohain which was also mutated vide Mutation Case No.752-1995-96. The petitioners are the sons of Jamua Devi and are aggrieved by cancellation of Jamabandi No.78/2008-09 at the instance of respondent no.5-Sonmati Devi.

It is contended that order in Miscellaneous Case No.78/2008-2009 was procured on the basis of forged and fabricated compromise petition, purported to be filed on behalf of petitioners and the opposite parties.

Miscellaneous Appeal No.7/2022 was filed before the Court of Commissioner, Palamau Division challenging the order of cancellation of Jamabandi on the basis of the said compromise petition, and the matter was remanded back to the Additional Collector, Palamau directing him to verify the genuineness of the compromise and pass appropriate order.

Additional Collector, Palamau dropped the proceeding, instead of verifying genuineness of the Sulahnama. Aggrieved by this order, petitioners have moved this Court in writ jurisdiction.

It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that out of seven number of opposite parties in the Misc. case, only four had executed Vakalatnama and Dilip Ram was not arrayed as a party. Only six persons had put their LTI/signature and the Advocate, who identified the petitioners, had not filed Vakalatnama. Land measuring 0.69 acre of Bachan Mahra was involved, but he had not joined the compromise petition. Similarly, Jamwa Devi had also not joined the compromise petition, although her 1.38 acre of land was involved.

Learned counsel on behalf of State submits that the petitioners have an alternative efficacious remedy as the order impugned is an appealable order before the Commissioner, by which the matter was earlier remanded to the Additional Collector.

In view of the availability of alternative remedy, I do not find the instant writ petition to be maintainable which accordingly, stands dismissed. Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.