Deepak Kumar vs Narvada Prasad

Hon''ble Shri Justice Sujoy Paul

By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the orders. dated 27.11.2010 (Annexure P/7), 16.5.2011 (Annexure P/9) and 10.1.2012 (Annexure P/1). By order dated 3.7.2010 (Annexure P/ 5) the application for mutation preferred by the petitioner was accepted. Against this order an appeal was preferred and the appellate authority by order dated 27.11.2010 set aside the aforesaid order dated 3.7.2010. It is held in the appellate order that without issuing proper notices to the pers. on interested and dependents and without issuing advertisement in this regard, the authority below has committed an error in allowing the application and granting mutation. Accordingly, the appellate authority by order dated 27.11.2010 remitted the matter back before the same authority to proceed further after hearing the parties in accordance with law. This order was put to test by the petitioner by preferring an appeal. The appellate Court by order dated 16.5.2011 (Annexure P/9) rejected the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the order of the authority below. The petitioner at this stage preferred a revision which is decided by impugned order dated 10.1.2012. This Authority also upheld the orders. passed by the authority below and order dated 16.5.2011.

The singular contention raised by Shri Rajput, learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is an admission of relevant facts by the other side and, therefore, the initial authority has not committed any error in passing the order dated 3.7.2010 and the appellate and revisional authorities have erred in mechanically remitting the matter back. For this purpose he placed reliance on certain portions of the orders. and applications.

Per Contra, Shri Sanjay K. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent supported both the orders. and submits that if the pleadings and evidence are read in entirety, it is clear that there is no unequivocal and unconditional admission on the part of the respondent before the authorities and, therefore, the authorities have committed no error of law in remitting the matter back for conducting the proceedings in accordance with law. He submits that no interference is warranted in proceedings of this nature wherein the authorities have remitted the matter back for proper adjudication. He submits that this will not cause prejudice to either of the parties.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The question involved in this matter is no more res integra. The Division Bench of this Curt in 1999 RN 99 (Anant Singh and another v. Govind and others) held that where Board of Revenue has remanded the case for further enquiry without deciding any right or interest in favour of any party, such remand order is not liable to be interfered with. The Division Bench held as under:-

Therefore, without dilating on the technical issues raised and appreciating the crux of the judgment passed by the writ court, we find ours. elves in complete agreement with a view taken by the court. After all nothing stands decided by the Board in favour of either party and if it had found the matter surrounded by none-two-happy circumstances, it was well within its right to call for a fresh enquiry by the S.D.O.. This was not liable to cause any prejudice to either party and if appellants believed in the merit of their case they should face the enquiry instead of shying away from it.

The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is well defined in view of recent judgment of Supreme Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, . In Shalini Shyam Shetty''s case it is held that the interference of this Court is required when the court below acts beyond jurisdiction, proceedings suffer from serious material irregularity and illegality, findings are perverse or the proceedings are barred by some law etc. None of these grounds are available in the present case. Another view is possible is not a ground for interference under Article 227. All the authorities have taken a concurrent view and remitted the matter back before the competent authority. On such remand, proper opportunity would be available to both the parties. Hence, this will not cause any prejudice to either of the parties. Apart from this, the contention of Rajput that the facts were totally admitted cannot be accepted on perusal of the record. There is no finding also to that effect, even in the order dated 3.7.2010 (Annexure P/5).

On the basis of aforesaid analysis I find no reason to interfere in this matter. Petition is bereft of merits and substance. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.