IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 5769 of 2010
Saroj Devi & others ...... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & others ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. PATEL
For the Petitioners : M/s M. N. Sinha, D.K. Prasad, Advocates
For Respondent Nos. 14: J.C. to G.A.
For Respondent No. 5 : None
......
th
05/Dated: 4 March, 2011
1. In pursuance of the order, passed by this Court dated 10th February,
2011, notice was issued upon respondent no. 5 to be served by personal
service, but, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that when
the petitioners approached respondent no. 5 to serve the notice of this
Court, respondent no. 5 refused to accept the notice and to that effect
counsel for the petitioners has filed an affidavit on 1st March, 2011.
2. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that originally Budhava
Oraon was the owner of the property in question, who sold it to Ram
Lakhan Sahu in the year, 1945 by registered sale deed. Thereafter, the
property was transferred to Manju Singh in the year 1989 again by
registered sale deed from Ram Lakhan Sahu. Thereafter, in the year,
1996, Manju Sinha transferred the property in question, by registered sale
deed to Yugal Kishore Prasad and in the year, 20042005 again by
registered sale deed the property was transferred from Yugal Kishore
Prasad to petitioner no. 1 i.e. Saroj Devi. It also appears from the facts of
the case that there was one Title Suit No. 857 of 1965 instituted by Ram
Lakhan Sahu against Budhava Oraon and their legal heirs. The said Title
Suit was decreed on 6th January, 1966 in favour of Ram Lakhan Sahu.
Thus, the property was transferred from Budhava Oraon to Ram Lakhan
Sahu in the year, 1945 and the transfer of the property from Budhava
Oraon to Ram Lakhan Sahu was approved by the concerned court by
judgment and decree dated 6th January, 1966 in Title Suit No. 857 of
1965. It is also submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that after
long lapse of time in the year 20042005, an application was preferred by
respondent no. 5 under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act for possession of
the property. This is absolutely time barred application and the fact that
the petitioners and their predecessorsintitle were not in possession of
2.
the suit property intermittently from Budhava Oraon and their legal heirs
since 1945 onwards, has not been properly appreciated either by the
Special Officer or by the Additional Collector or by the Divisional
Commissioner.
3. Having heard counsel for the petitioners, counsel for respondent
nos. 1 to 4, and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it
appears that there is a prima facie case in favour of the petitioners. The
petitioners and their predecessorsintitle were in possession of the
property in question since several decades. They have constructed their
houses also. Balance of convenience is also in favour of the present
petitioners and if the stay, as prayed for, is not granted, it will cause
irreparable loss to the petitioners.
4. I therefore, stay the operation, implementation and execution of
an order, passed in S.A.R. Case No. 432 of 20042005 dated 26th
November, 2007, passed by the Special Officer, Scheduled Area
Regulation, Ranchi as well as I also stay the operation, implementation
and execution of an order, passed in S.A.R. Appeal No. 01R15 of 200809
dated 10th February, 2010, passed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi as
well as I also stay the operation, implementation and execution of an
order, passed in S.A.R. Revision Case No. 16 of 2010 dated 31st May,
2010, passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi,
during pendency and final disposal of this writ petition.
5. Rule.
(D.N. Patel, J.)
VK