Anil Paswan vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

This case is taken up through video conferencing.

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 04.02.2021 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) passed by the Sub Divisional

Magistrate, Chandil- respondent no.5 in S.A.R. Case no.01 of 2020-21 and further to stay the same. Further prayer has been made for quashing the

part of the order dated 08.02.2021 (Annexure- 14 to the writ petition) passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Saraikella-Kharsawan-

respondent no.4 in S.A.R. Appeal Case No. 03 of 2020-21, whereby the application seeking stay of order dated 04.02.2021 passed by the respondent

no.5 in S.A.R. Case No.01 of 2020-21 has been rejected. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the notice dated 06.02.2021 (Annexure-15 to the

writ petition) issued by the Circle Officer, Chandil- respondent no.6 in compliance of the order dated 04.02.2021 passed by the respondent no.5 and

further to stay the same.

The respondent no.7 filed a case for restoration of land under Section 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 in the court of the respondent

no.5 against the petitioner as well as the respondent nos.10 to 14. The said case was registered as S.A.R. Case No.01 of 2020-21. The respondent

no.5, vide order dated 04.02.2021 while allowing the said case in favour of the respondent no.7, directed the respondent no.6 to ensure delivery of

possession of the land in question in favour of the respondent no.7 within 15 days from the date of the order by evicting the petitioner as well as the

respondent nos.10 to 14 (defendants in the said case) from the said land and Jamabandi running in the name of Shivnath Sinha son of Kanhai Sinha

appearing at page no.438, Jild no.01 of Register-II was also cancelled. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal being S.A.R.

Appeal Case no.03 of 2020-21 in the court of the respondent no.4 wherein he also prayed for stay of operation of order dated 04.02.2021 passed by

the respondent no.5 in S.A.R. Case no.01 of 2020-21. However, the respondent no.4, vide impugned order dated 08.02.2021 admitted the appeal and

rejected the petitioner's prayer for staying the operation of the order dated 04.02.2021 passed by the respondent no.5. Thereafter, the respondent no.6

issued letter dated 06.02.2021 to the mother of the petitioner, namely, Devati Devi- respondent no.11 for compliance of the order dated 04.02.2021

passed by the respondent no.5 in S.A.R. Case no.01 of 2020-21. Hence, the present writ petition.

Mr. A. K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that there is complete non-application of mind on the part of the respondent no.4 while

rejecting the petitioner's prayer seeking stay of the order dated 04.02.2021 passed by the respondent no.5. It is also submitted that the said impugned

order has been passed by the respondent no.4 in undue haste without prima facie appreciating the grounds taken in appeal seeking stay of the order

dated 04.02.2021 passed by the respondent no.5. If stay is not granted against the order 04.02.2021 passed by the respondent no.5, the appeal

preferred by the petitioner in the court of the respondent no.4 would itself be rendered infructuous.

Mrs. Darshana Poddar Mishra, learned A.A.G.I, appearing on behalf of the State respondents, submits that the impugned order dated 08.02.2021

passed by the respondent no.4 is completely justified as the petitioner was insisting before the said court to pass the interim order on the very first day

of listing of the said case which could not have been possible in absence of the Lower Court Records (LCR) which, in fact, was called for by the

respondent no.4, as would be evident from the impugned order dated 08.02.2021 itself.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the content of the writ petition including the impugned order dated 08.02.2021

passed by the respondent no.4, it appears that while rejecting the petitioner's prayer for stay, it has been observed by the respondent no.4 in the

impugned order that without fully appreciating the order passed by the respondent no.5, it would not be proper to pass an order of stay. In my view,

the said reason assigned by the respondent no.4 while rejecting the petitioner's prayer for stay is completely outplaced and indicative of non-application

of mind by the said respondent. If at all, the respondent no.4 intended to go through/peruse the LCR maintained in the office of the respondent no.5

before considering the petitioner's prayer for stay, he should have called for the same and thereafter has proceeded to entertain the said prayer of the

petitioner. That process would have hardly taken couple of days. Instead of prima facie applying his mind while considering the petitioner's prayer

seeking stay/interim relief, the respondent no.4 outrightly rejected the same without appreciating the contention of the petitioner at all.

Hence, the impugned order dated 08.02.2021 passed by the respondent no.4 cannot be sustained in law and the same is quashed/set aside. The

matter is remanded to the respondent no.4 to pass an appropriate order on petitioner's prayer seeking interim relief, after providing due opportunity of

hearing to both the sides, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one week from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this

order.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merit of the case.