Deena Nath Prasad vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

D.N. Patel, J.—Having heard counsel for both sides and looking to the contentious issues raised in this petition, Rule.

Respective counsels for the Respondents waives notice of Rule.

The present writ petition has been preferred by the successors in title of Ram Nandan Paswan and it is submitted by the counsel for the Petitioner that from the year, 1963, the Petitioner and their predecessors in title are in possession of the property. The property involved in this writ petition is a residential property and the Petitioner is even today residing in the said property since last four decades.

Counsel for the Respondents submitted that in the year, 1963 illegally the property was owned and possessed by Ram Nandan Pawan from Bhola Oraon or his legal heirs and an application was preferred by the contesting Respondent u/s 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act and therefore, all the three orders have been passed against the present Petitioner, which are under challenge in this writ petition.

Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there is prima facie case in favour of the present Petitioner. The Petitioner is claiming his right, title and interest in the property, in question, from Ram Nandan Paswan, who possessed the property as an owner in the year 1963 from Bhola Oraon or from their legal heirs. Thereafter, the suit property was transferred to one Smt. Saraswati Devi as a gift by Ram Nandan Paswan approximately in the year, 1979. Thereafter, the property, in question, was transferred to Kiran Kumari, who is daughter of Smt. Saraswati Devi and the Petitioner has married with Kiran Kumari, who is owner of the property. This is how the Petitioner is claiming right, title and interest in the property since 1963. Property involved in this petition is a residential property in which the Petitioner is residing.

In view of these facts, it appears that there is prima facie case in favour of the Petitioner. Balance of convenience is also in favour of the present Petitioner and if the stay, as prayed for, is not granted, it will cause irreparable loss to the Petitioner.

I therefore, stay the operation, implementation and execution of an order passed by the Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation, Ranchi dated 28th July, 2008 in S.A.R. Case No. 334 of 20052006 (Annexure4). I also stay the operation, implementation and execution of an order, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in Restoration Appeal No. 21R15/20092010 dated 6th August, 2009 (Annexure6) as well as I also stay, the operation, implementation and execution of an order passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Region, Ranchi in S.A.R. Revision Case No. 91 of 2009 dated 9th March, 2010 (Annexure9), during pendency and final hearing of this writ petition.