Jharkhand High Court
Dinesh Kumar Pal Aged About 61 Years S/O … vs State Of Jharkhand on 8 April, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:10890
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 2631 of 2022
---------
1. Dinesh Kumar Pal aged about 61 years S/o Late Balram
Pal, Resident of village Shikaripara, P.O and P.S Shikaripara,
District-Dumka, Jharkhand.
2. Suresh Kumar Pal aged about 48 years S/o Late Balram
Pal, Resident of village Shikaripara, P.O and P.S Shikaripara,
District-Dumka, Jharkhand. …..Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. The Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka
Divisional Commissioner Office, Dumka, P.O and P.S Dumka,
Dist-Dumka.
3. The Settlement Officer, Santhal Pargana, P.O and P.S
Dumka, District-Dumka, Jharkhand.
4. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Dumka, P.O and P.S
Dumka, Dist-Dumka, Jharkhand.
5. Kanhai Pal, Late Kishto Pal, Resident of village
Shikaripara, P.O and P.S-Shikaripara, District-Dumka,
Jharkhand ….Respondents
———
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Bhupal Krishna Prasad, Advocate
For the Resp.-No.5 : Mr.Rahul Kumar Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Kanhai Pal, Advocate
For the Resp.-State Mr.Varun Prabhakar, A.C. to G.P.-III
---------
CAV On: 07/03/2025 Delivered on:08/04/2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed praying, inter alia,
for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for setting aside of the
orders dated 10th of December 2021, passed by Respondent No. 2
in RM (Settlement Objection) Revision No. 150/2018-19 and the
order dated 9th of March 2018 passed in Objection Appeal No.
184/2017 passed by Respondent No. 3. The Petitioners have
further prayed that the order passed by Respondent No. 4 in
Objection Case No. 4 of 2017 on 15th of July 2017 be confirmed.
1
2025:JHHC:10890
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners have claimed right over the land appertaining to plot
number 1109 (old plot number 960 and 961) and plot number
1265 (old plot number 1084 and 1085) of new jamabandi khata
number 103 of mouza Shikaripara through inheritance. The lands
forming subject matter of the instant writ petition was settled in
favour of late Kishto Pal (grandfather of the Petitioners and father
of Respondent No. 5), in the year 1961 by the then landlord. The
final parcha, published on 22nd of April 2017, records joint
possession of Respondent No. 5 and Balram Pal (i.e. father of the
Petitioners).
It has been further pleaded that after the publication of the
final parcha, Respondent No. 5 filed an objection registered as
Objection Case No. 4/2017. The objection raised by Respondent
No. 5 was that the plot being 1085 admeasuring an area of 1
kathas 16 dhurs, which formed a part of the newly numbered Plot
No. 1265 should be recorded in the name of both brothers (i.e.
Respondent No. 5 and Balram Pal) equally. Upon issuance of
notice on the objection raised by Respondent no. 5, the Petitioners
appeared and confirmed that Respondent No. 5 and the
Petitioners were members of a joint family and as such they
acquiesced to the objection raised by Respondent No. 5. On basis
of the above, objection was adjudicated vide order dated 15th of
July 2017.
2
2025:JHHC:10890
However, Respondent No. 5 assailed the order dated 15th of
July 2017 passed in Objection Case No. 4/2017, by filing an
appeal registered as Objection Appeal No. 184/2017. Respondent
No. 5 pleaded that an area of 5 kathas of old Plot No. 1084
(forming part of new Plot No. 1265) was settled exclusively in his
name vide order dated 16th of December 1966 passed in Rev Misc
Appeal No. 149/1966-67. He further admitted jointness of family
and possession. In the memo of appeal, it was further stated that
the land appertaining to old plot being 1085 was settled in the
name of both brothers jointly. During the pendency of the appeal,
a verification of the physical status of the property was directed.
The amin submitted his report on 5th of March 2018, wherein it
was stated that new Plot being 1265 (comprising of both old Plots
i.e. 1085 and 1084) was in joint possession of both the parties.
The report further affirmed the claim of the Petitioners with
respect to the jointness of family. The verification was
undertaken in the presence of both parties and other villagers.
Respondent No. 3, adjudicated the appeal vide order dated
9th of March 2018, wherein it was held that the total area of the
new Plot No. 1265 is 31 decimal and his settlement is claimed
only over 15 decimals of land by Respondent No. 5 (appellant
therein), the same should be recorded jointly in the name of both
the parties. The remaining area i.e. 16 decimals was declared as
anavaad khata.
3
2025:JHHC:10890
A revision being RM (settlement objection) Revision No.
150/2018-19 against the above order was preferred by
Respondent No. 5, wherein he pleaded that the new plot No. 1265
admeasuring a total area of 31 decimal was a combination of old
plot No. 1084 and 1085. Out of a total area of 31 decimals, only 1
decimal of land was in the joint possession of the parties and the
rest was in the exclusive possession of Respondent No. 5.
The Petitioners appeared in revision case and submitted
that the lands appertaining to plot number 1109 (old plot number
960 and 961) and plot number 1265 (old plot number 1084 and
1085) of new jamabandi khata number 103 of mouza Shikaripara
was settled in the favour of the grandfather of the Petitioner and
after his demise the joint possession was passed on to his sons
i.e. Balram Pal and Respondent No. 5. Balram Pal dies in
jointness and the parties are still in joint possession of the land
and the residential house over the land, without any partition.
The said revision petition was allowed vide order dated 10th of
December 2021, wherein Respondent No. 2 directed that 30
decimal of land appertaining to new plot No. 1265 be recorded in
the favor of Respondent No. 5 and remaining 1 (one) decimal of
land be recorded in joint possession of both parties.
4. Relying upon the above factual matrix, Ld. Counsel
representing the Petitioners contended that the orders impugned
stand vitiated as the same has been passed without appreciating
4
2025:JHHC:10890
the fact that the entire case of Respondent No. 5 is barred by
principles of constructive res judicata as he had not raised the
ground pertaining to the exclusive possession of 5 kathas of old
plot No. 1085. He has further contended that the orders passed in
appeal as well as revision are bereft of any reasons and has been
passed in ignorance of the established fact that there is jointness
of family and property between the parties.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 has
contended that Kisto Pal was a native resident of Susnai/Singhni
and had come to Shikaripara for a while and then again returned
to Susnai/Singhni. It was Respondent No. 5 who used to work for
the then landlord and prior to zamindari being abolished, 20
decimals of land in the southern part of Plot No. 1084 was settled
in his name. Further 5 (five) kathas of land from the same plot
was settled in his name and 1 khataand 16 dhurs of land was
settled jointly in the name of his brother and himself. Thereafter,
a house was constructed by Respondent No. 5. He has claimed
exclusive possession over the land admeasuring an area of 30
decimal appertaining to new plot no. 1265 and accepts joint
possession only over 1 decimal of land.
It has further been submitted that the petitioners were
continuously raising objections prior to preparation of final
purcha; however, the same were not considered. It has been
further submitted that the amin report cannot be taken into
5
2025:JHHC:10890
consideration and the villagers have made statement regarding
jointness with respect to only 1 decimal of land. Respondent No. 5
has produced the photocopy of the certified copy of the order
dated 16th of December 1966 with respect to the settlement of 5
kathas of land.
On basis of the above, Ld. Counsel appearing for
Respondent No. 5 has submitted that the order passed in the
revision case has been passed after taking into consideration all
facts and the writ petition is fit to be dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has supported
the order dated 10th of December 2021, passed by Respondent No.
2 in RM (Settlement Objection) Revision No. 150/2018-19.
7. Heard learned Counsel representing their respective parties
at length and have perused the documents annexed with the
respective affidavits and the averments made therein. A perusal of
the orders passed by the Appellate and the Revisional authority
transpires that neither of the authorities have considered the
disputed and complicated questions of facts involved in the case
at hand. The attending facts of the case show that the dispute
between the parties involve complicated and disputed questions of
fact, which has to be adjudicated by taking evidence. The
examples of some of such disputed questions are summarized as
under:-
6
2025:JHHC:10890
(i) Respondent No. 5, in its counter-affidavit has
claimed that the settlement of the land forming subject
matter of the instant writ petition was made in her name;
meanwhile the Petitioners claim that the land was settled in
the name of their grandfather i.e. Kisto Pal.
(ii) The issue with respect to the jointness of the family
is also disputed.
(iii) Lastly, the issue with respect to the possession of
the land appertaining to Plot No. 1265, as claimed by the
Petitioner has been controverted by the Respondent.
8. It is trite law that reasoning is the soul of any conclusion.
Any order sans reasoning is lifeless and amount to violation of
principles of natural justice. Any order bereft of reason breeds
arbitrariness, uncertainty and unnecessary litigation. Providing of
reasons in orders is of essence in judicial proceedings. Every
litigant who approaches the Court with a prayer is entitled to
know the reasons for acceptance or rejection of such request.
Either of the parties to the lis has a right of appeal and, therefore,
it is essential for them to know the considered opinion of the
Court to make the remedy of appeal meaningful. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of Rajasthan v.
Rajendra Prasad Jain1 raised a cautionary voice and held as
under:-
“9. The questions involved were not trivial. The effect of the admission of the
accused in the background of testimony of official witnesses and the
documents exhibited needed adjudication in appeal. The High Court has not
given any reasons for refusing to grant leave to file appeal against acquittal,
and seems to have been completely oblivious to the fact that by such refusal,
a close scrutiny of the order of acquittal, by the appellate forum, has been
lost once and for all. The manner in which appeal against acquittal has been
dealt with by the High Court leaves much to be desired.
1
(2008) 15 SCC 711
7
2025:JHHC:10890
10. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of
justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief in
its order, indicative of an application of its mind; all the more when its order
is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has
rendered the High Court order not sustainable. Similar view was expressed
in State of U.P. v. Battan.”
9. It is also now well settled proposition of law that hotly
contested disputed question of facts is to be proved by the party
and Courts while exercising writ jurisdiction should refrain from
adjudicating any such dispute. Reference in this regard is made to
the case of Roshina T vs. Abdul Azeez K.T. and Ors.2, wherein
the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:-
“14. It has been consistently held by this Court that a regular suit is the
appropriate remedy for settlement of the disputes relating to property rights
between the private persons. The remedy Under Article 226 of the
Constitution shall not be available except where violation of some statutory
duty on the part of statutory authority is alleged. In such cases, the Court
has jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions to the authority concerned. It
is held that the High Court cannot allow its constitutional jurisdiction to be
used for deciding disputes, for which remedies under the general law, civil
or criminal are available. This Court has held that it is not intended to
replace the ordinary remedies by way of a civil suit or application available
to an aggrieved person. The jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution
being special and extraordinary, it should not be exercised casually or
lightly on mere asking by the litigant”
10. Considering the disputed and complicated questions of
facts; some of which are mentioned in Paragraph-7 hereinabove
and the settled position of law, this Court cannot return any
finding on the merits of the case. However, it cannot ignore the
fact that the order dated 10.12.2021, passed by Respondent No. 2
in RM (Settlement Objection) Revision No. 150/2018-19 and order
dated 09.03.2018 passed in Objection Appeal No. 184/2017
passed by Respondent No.3; are devoid of any reasons and has
travelled beyond the scope of the pleadings of the parties and
accordingly the same deserves to be, and, is hereby, quashed and
set aside.
2
(2019) 2 SCC 329
8
2025:JHHC:10890
The matter is remitted back to Respondent No. 3 (i.e. the
Appellate Authority) for fresh consideration. It goes without saying
that the Appellate Authority shall adjudicate the lis keeping in
mind the issues involved and in accordance to the legislative
mandate under Section 5 of the Santhal Pargana Regulation,
1872.
The entire exercise shall be completed by the concerned
Respondent as early as possible, preferably within a period of
twelve weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this
order.
11. Accordingly, the instant Writ Petition stands disposed of in
the manner indicated hereinabove. Pending I.As., if any,also stand
closed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Amardeep/
9