AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajesh Kumar, J
The present writ petition has been filed for following reliefs:-
“for issuance of and appropriate Writ(s), Order(s), and Direction(s) and/or particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the Order dated 25/10/2014 (Anx-3) passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Simdega, (Res-3) whereby and whereunder the learned Authority has cancelled the long running Jamabandi of the petitioner over the land situated within village-Konmerla, Khata No.-1, Plot No.-2728 measuring an area 0.25 acre out of 1.98 acres crated under Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1948, on the ground that petitioner do not qualify for getting the Basgit Parcha. Although the petitioner has got parcha of the said land after proper enquiry and verification made in Case a No. 35/74-75 in favour of the petitioner over the land. Thereafter petitioner has been paying rent continuously till 2013. The entire exercise has been done by the authority without following principle of natural justice behind the back of the petitioner.
The Petitioner further prays for issuance of an appropriate Writ(s), Order(s), Direction(s) and/or particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent/s authorities not to disturb the possession of the petitioner over the said land on the basis of illegal order.”
The description of the land as follows:-
“land situated within village-Konmerla, Khata No.-1, Plot No.-2728 measuring an area 0.25 acre out of 1.98 acres crated under Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1948”
The order dated 03.05.2018 reads as under:-
“The case of the petitioner is that without issuing any notice or initiating any proceeding, the Jamabandi running in the name of the petitioner was cancelled by the respondents. To substantiate his claim, he refers to annexure 3 which is the letter dated 25.10.2014 (impugned letter) by which the S.D.O, Simdega informed the Circle Officer, Simdega that the Jamabandi standing in the name of the petitioner in respect of the land in Thana No. 77, Plot no. 2728 over an area of 25 decimals of Mauza Konmerla is cancelled.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither any proceeding was initiating nor he was noticed before passing the impugned order. Counter affidavit is vague in this point.
Thus, I direct the respondents to file a supplementary counter-affidavit stating specifically as to (i) Whether any proceeding was initiated for cancellation of the Jamabandi (ii) whether any notice was issued and served upon the petitioner before cancelling his Jamabandi;. Affidavit should be filed within a period of four weeks.
List this case after four weeks under the heading “for Admission”.
In the meantime status quo in respect of possession over the land in question should be maintained by the parties.”
In response of the query raised by this Court, a supplementary counter affidavit dated 05.09.2018 has been filed on behalf of Respondent Nos.2 to 4. The relevant portion is para-6 which is quoted hereinbelow:-
Sl. No.
Query raised by the Hon’ble High Court
Reply
(i)
Whether any proceeding was initiated for cancelling the Jamabandi.
Yes A proceeding was initiated.
(ii)
Whether any notice was issued and served upon the petitioner before cancelling his Jamabandi.
No Notice was served upon the petitioner.
Thus, the impugned order has been passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner which per se in violation of principle of natural justice.
In that view of the matter, the order dated 25.10.2014 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Simdega is hereby quashed and set aside.
However, the parties are at liberty to work out their remedy in accordance with law.
With aforesaid liberty, the present writ petition stands disposed of.