(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.
(2.) The Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakur - respondent no.3 earlier passed an order bearing memo no.311 dated 21st May 2015 on the application of the petitioner to demarcate a piece of land measuring 17 Kathas 11 Dhurs being Plot no.22 pertaining to Jamabandi No.11, Mouza Sunderpur, P.S./Circle Hiranpur, District Pakur out of total area of 1 Bigha 15 Katha and 10 Dhurs of land in the said plot. By the subsequent order dated 8th June, 2015 bearing letter no.339 addressed to the respondent no.4- Circle Officer, Hiranpur, District Pakur again (Annexure-8) he recalled the order, this time on the objection made by the respondent no.5 herein. Respondent no.5 complained that the judgment passed in Title Appeal No.03/2010, Md. Tarique & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. (Annexure-3) dated 31st March, 2015 in respect of same piece of land in which the petitioner was defendant no.8 and respondent no.5 herein was defendant no.5 therein were not brought to the notice of learned Sub-Divisional Officer. The respondent no.3, therefore, recalled the earlier order dated 21st May, 2015 (Annexure-5) and directed the Circle Officer, Hiranpur to consider the applications/objections of the rival parties and any other objection in respect of the lands in question and thereafter undertake the exercise of demarcation in accordance with law. The respondent no.4 was also directed to look into the judgment passed by the appellate court and any other document of partition in respect of the plot in question.
(3.) Petitioner contends that the plot had been demarcated on issuance of the earlier order at Annexure-5 dated 21st May 2015. Recall of the aforesaid order, therefore, cannot restore the status-quo. Learned Title Appellate Court held in the judgment dated 31st March 2015 that the transfer of the said plot in favour of the original plaintiff Kabir Ahmad was illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also sought to rely upon same judgment such as paragraphs-59, 95, etc. to support his case that the learned appellate court has recorded that land of Jamabandi No.11 were recorded in the name of Gangadhar Prasad Bit, father of the petitioner and Banbihari Bit. There is no dispute therefore relating to title of the property so far as petitioner is concerned. Therefore, the impugned order in the nature of review of its earlier order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakur is untenable in law and on facts.