IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 1566 of 2003
1.Ram Chandra Prasad Sinha
2.Prakash Sinha @ Prakash Kumar Sinha
3.Md. Kamal Ansari @ Kamal
4.Sree Ram Upadhyaya
5.Ismail Mian @ Md. Ismail..................... Petitioners.
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. The Additional Collector, Dhanbad
3. The Land Reform Deputy Collector, Dhanbad
4. The Circle Officer, Dhanbad
5. Bijay Manjhi ............ Respondents
......
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amareshwar Sahay
......
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. L.K.LaLL, SC (L & C)
......
5/02.09.2009
Heard the parties.
The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned orders as
contained in Annexure- 12 series as well as the orders as contained in
Annexure-13 to 17 to the writ petitions.
By Annexure-12 series, the L.R.D.C., Dhanbad, in exercise
of the powers under Section 46 (4) (a) of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy
Act, passed an order for restoration of the lands in question in favour of
the private Respondent no. 5, whereas by Annexure- 13 to 17, the
Appellate Court, i.e. the Additional Collector, Dhanbad, has dismissed
the appeals, filed by the petitioners against the orders as contained in
Annexure- 12 series.
The grievance of the petitioner is that alongwith the cases
of the petitioners the L.R.D.C. by the same impugned order also passed
an order for restoration of the land belonging to one Permanand Prasad
Sinha and the said Permanand Pd. Sinha also filed an appeal before the
Appellate Authority, i.e. the Additional Collector, Dhanbad. The appeal
filed by the petitioners were registered as C.N.T. Appeal No. 80, 82, 83,
85 and 86 of 2002-03, whereas the appeal filed by the said Permanand
Pd. Sinha was registered as C.N.T. Appeal No. 81/2002.
-2-
The petitioners allege that though the case of the present
petitioners as well as the case of the aforesaid Permanand Pd. Sinha
was exactly similar in nature but the Appellate Court has adopted
double standard in deciding the appeal of the petitioners vis-à-vis the
appeal filed by Permanand Pd. Sinha. The Appellant Court has
dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, whereas he has allowed the
appeal filed by Permanand Pd. Sinha and remanded the matter back to
the L.R.D.C., Dhanbad to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
Mr. L.K.Lall, learned S.C. (L & C) appearing for the State on
verification of the records and after examining the facts involved in both
the cases fairly submits that the case of the present petitioners as well
as the case of Permanand Pd. Sinha were identical.
On the facts narrated above, I find that the submissions of
the learned counsel for the petitioners to be correct that the Appellate
Court has adopted double standard in deciding the case of the
petitioners vis-à-vis the case of Permanand Pd. Sinha. Accordingly, the
orders contained in Annexure-12 series passed by the L.R.D.C.,
Dhanbad as well as the orders as contained in Annexure-13 to 17,
passed by the Additional Collector, Dhanbad, are hereby set aside and
the matter is remitted back to the L.R.D.C., Dhanbad to consider the
case a fresh and dispose of the case of the petitioners alongwith the
case of Permanand Pd. Sinha, if not already disposed of, within a period
of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this
order.
(Amareshwar Sahay, J)
Mukund/-