Heera Lal Pandit @ Hari Shankar Pandit vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing/setting aside the order dated 27.03.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda -

respondent no. 3 in R.M.A. No. 05 of 2017-18 whereby the said appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 07.02.2017 passed by the

Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda- respondent no. 4 in R.E.R. Case No. 71 of 2014-15, has been dropped without assigning any reason.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.C. to G.P-V appearing on behalf of the State respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application under Sections 20 and 42 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary) Act, 1949

(in short “the Act, 1949â€) was filed by the respondent no. 5- Ramdeo Mirdha before the respondent no.-4 for eviction of the petitioner from the

land appertaining to Jamabandi No. 3, Mouza- Kathon, No. 48, Touzi No.-457, plot no. 1730, measuring an area of 4 Dhur, P.S. Poraiyahat, District-

Godda (hereinafter to be referred as “the said landâ€) and for restoration of the same in his favour. The said application was registered as R.E.R.

Case No. 71 of 2014-15 and vide order dated 07.02.2017, the respondent no. 4 allowed the said application of the respondent no. 5 with a direction for

restoration of the said land in his favour. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal in the court of the respondent no. 3 on

09.05.2017, which was registered as R.M.A. No. 05 of 2017-18. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner though the said appeal remained

pending for several months, yet vide impugned order dated 27.03.2018, the same has been dropped by the respondent no. 3 without assigning any

reason. The said order being completely unreasoned, is thus liable to be set aside.

Learned A.C. to G.P.-V appearing on behalf of the State respondents submits that though the impugned order dated 27. 03.2018 passed by the

respondent no. 3 is not a detailed one, yet it appears from the same that the respondent no. 3 being in agreement with the finding of the respondent

no.4 dropped the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Hence, the said order does not require any interference of this Court.

On perusal of the content of the writ petition, it appears that vide order dated 14.09.2017, the appeal (R.M.A. No. 05 of 2017-18) preferred by the

petitioner was admitted by the respondent no. 3 and notice was issued to the opposite party. However, the said appeal preferred by the petitioner was

dropped by the respondent no. 3 on 27.03.2018 by passing the following order:-

“Petition of Intervenor is not accepted. SDO Godda has passed reasoned order on the matter. This Court agrees with the said matter.

The case is dropped.â€​

It is difficult for this Court to accept the fact that the said order has been passed by an officer having the rank of Deputy Commissioner of a district

exercising the power of an appellate authority under the provisions of the Act, 1949. Any person aggrieved by the order of the original authority has

the right to prefer appeal before the appellate authority as per the provisions of the statue. The manner in which the respondent no. 3 has dropped the

appellate proceeding is a matter of concern as the same is indicative of the manner in which the appeals are being adjudicated by the appellate

authorities. Requirement of passing a reasoned order by an administrative/quasi-judicial authority is not mere a formality, rather the same is imperative

so as to reflect fairness towards the contesting parties of a case. A person has the right to know as to under what ground his/her application/appeal

has been rejected by a government authority performing a quasi-judicial function. This Court is mindful of this fact that an officer having the rank of

Deputy Commissioner has different administrative works also, yet pre-occupation in any administrative work cannot be an excuse to dispose of a case

under quasi-judicial jurisdiction the manner in which the respondent no. 3 has done.

The impugned order dated 27.03.2018 runs in three lines in which nothing has been discussed regarding merit of the appeal preferred by the

petitioner. Hence, the said order being bereft of any reason whatsoever cannot be sustained in law and as such the same is quashed/set aside. The

matter is remanded to the respondent no. 3 to pass a fresh informed order in the appeal after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as

well as the respondent no. 5 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 12 (twelve) weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy

of this order.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid observation and direction.