NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the Court. -The petitioner, by way of filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 3.10.2005 (Annexure -8) passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi in SAR Revision No. 296/ 1997, whereby, the learned Commissioner allowed the revision and thereby set aside the order dated 26.3.1997 passed by respondent No.3 in SAR Appeal No. 657R 15/1996 97.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State. None appears on behalf of private respondent No. 5 though the notice was duly served.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the judgment reported in 1990 BLT 352, Sri. Rajendra Nath Kapoor v. The State of Bihar and others. It has been very specifically held in the said judgment that the scope of Section 71 -A and 49(5) are completely different. The former speaks about fraud on the transferor -raiyat whereas, the latter speaks about misrepresentation or fraud on the Deputy Commissioner. In Section 49(5) the reference is to sub -sections (1) and (2) of Section 49 whereas in Section 71 -A, Section 46 has been specifically mentioned. It is a general rule of interpretation of statues that special provision will over ride the general provision. When there is specific provision for annulling transfer made with consent of the Deputy Commissioner, recourse must be had to that an application under the general provision, i.e. under Section 71 -A of the Act is barred. Moreover, as notice, above the form is also different. The same is also applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.