AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Mayank Mohit Sinha, counsel appearing for the petitioners.Â
Heard Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Senior counsel assisted by Ms. Anjana Rana, counsel appearing for the respondent nos.4 to 6.
This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
“For a direction for quashing the order dated 17.07.1998 (Annexure1) passed by the Settlement Officer, Dumka in settlement correction case no.-
56 of 1996, the appellate order dated 15.6.12 (Annexure-3) passed by the commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka (Respondent No.-2) in
R.M.R. No.-43/2000-01 whereby and whereunder the Respondent Authorities have rejected the petition filed by the petitioners for restoration of land
as not maintainable although in Mc. Phersons settlement JB No.-7 and 8 measuring 23B-9K-16D, Mc. Pherson’s J.B. No.-30 area 20B-2K-7D,
Mc. Pherson’s J.B. No.32 and 53 measuring 17B-5K-3D and MC. Phersons’s Settlement No.-46 measuring 18B-10K-8D total area 79B-7K-
14D stood recorded in the names of ancestors of petitioners and case record of RM Case No.-III/22 of 1919-20 shows that 10B-18K-10D of land
were shown to have been illegally purchased by one Mukhlal Upadyay and accordingly only that area of land was to be included with the lands of
MC. Pherson’s settlement JB No.-48 of mouza-Kordiha which was recorded in the name of Mukhlal Upadhyay, Pradhan with others but in the
corresponding Gantzers settlement JB No.-41 prepared for MC. Pherson’s settlement JB No.-48 instead of 10B-18K-10D of land, entire 79B-7K-
14D of Mc. Pherson’s JB No.-7, 8, 30, 32, 53 and 46 were included without any order by any Authority in the name of daughter of said Mukhlal
Upadhyay whereby vast area of landed properties which were non-transferrable agricultural lands of the petitioners who are illiterate tribals has
been grabbed by the ancestors of Respondents by playing fraud upon them and the Respondent Authorities have rejected the petition filed by the
petitioners for restoration of land in contravention of provision of Section-20(5) of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949 by Regulation-I of 1969
whereby non-transferable agricultural lands which initially belonged to the petitioners who are tribal raiyats are legally entitled to restoration of all
those lands.â€
Counsel for the petitioners by referring to the impugned order as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition submits that the impugned order is a
non-speaking cryptic order and accordingly, on this short ground the impugned order is fit to be set-aside and the matter should be remitted back to the
court of Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka to pass fresh speaking order in R.M.R. No.-43/2000-01.Â
Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the 1st page of the impugned order deals with the submission of the petitioners. The 2nd page of the
order deals with the submission of the respondents and in the 3rd page of the order, the submission of the respondents continues and thereafter, the
Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka has passed the following order:
 “After going through the documents filed by both the parties and going through the petition filed by the petitioners and written argument by both
parties I find that on the grounds discussed above the petition is not maintainable and I reject the petition on above grounds.â€
Counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid order dated 15.06.2012 passed by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka
appears to be non-speaking and accordingly, the same may be set-aside.Â
Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the petitioners have no case on merits and accordingly, the Commissioner, Santhal
Pargana Division, Dumka vide order dated 15.06.2012 has rightly dismissed the case of the petitioners.Â
Counsel for the respondents also submits that the names of the ancestors of the petitioners were neither recorded in Mc. Pherson’s settlement
nor in the Gantzer’s settlement. Therefore, they do not have any case on merits.Â
However, so far as the point of the impugned order being non-speaking, the counsel for the respondents are not in a position to show any
reasoning given by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka in the impugned order.Â
Counsel for the respondents-State Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, is also not in a position to show the reasoning in the impugned order passed by
the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka and is accordingly not in a position to counter the argument of the petitioner that the impugned
order is a non- speaking order.Â
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and after going through the materials on record, this Court finds that the impugned order
dated 15.06.2012 passed by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka in R.M.R. No.43 of 2000-01 is a non-speaking order and
accordingly, the same cannot be sustained.Â
Accordingly, the impugned order is set-aside and the matter is remitted back to the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka to pass fresh
order in R.M.R. No.43 of 2000-01 after hearing the counsel for the parties and after discussing the materials on record within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
             Â