D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) PRESENT writ petition has been preferred mainly against the order passed by Circle Officer, Ranchi dated 28 December, 2007 in Mutation Case No. 8075 (R) -27 of 2(06 -07.
(2.) COUNSEL appearing for the petitioner submitted that the father of the present petitioner had purchased the property in question in the year 1961. Thereafter partition has taken place and the property in question has come to the petitioner as a coparcener of the joint Hindu family. Thereafter an application under Section 71 -A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 was preferred by one Patru Oraon and thereafter the case was registered as Scheduled Area Regulation case No. 14 of 1998 -99 which was ultimately decided vide order dated 21st January, 2000 by the Special Officer, Sadar Ranchi under the Scheduled Area Regulation, Ranchi. The said order is at Annexure -1 to the memo of petition. This order has attained its finality as no appeal has been preferred by the original applicant nor by anyone else and thereafter present petitioner has applied for mutation of the entry in the revenue record in his name which has been dismissed vide order dated 28 December, 2007 by Circle Officer, Ranchi mainly on the ground that there is some lump sum general order passed by Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi bearing Letter No. 725 dated 4 November, 2004 but never a copy of this order was given to the petitioner. It is also submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that even respondents are not knowing what is that letter, though reply has been filed by the respondents in this mutter, the aforesaid lump sum general order passed by so -called Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi is not even annexed. What is that general order no body knows it. It is also submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that an order was passed as Annexure -1 dated 21st of January, 2000 in a Scheduled Area Regulation Case No. 14 of 1998 -99 cannot be brushed aside without there being any appeal by one lump sum order and all such orders cannot be quashed or set aside by so -called Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and hence the order passed by the Circle Officer dated 28 of December, 2007 is fully non -application of mind and is in utter violation of principles of natural justice and hence the same deserve to be quashed. I have heard the learned Counsel for the respondents who has submitted that the officer who has passed the order as Annexure -1, who is Special Officer under Scheduled Area Regulation is not an authorized officer at all to decide scheduled area regulation case and therefore an order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi bearing Letter No. 725 dated 4 November, 2004 that all such orders are set aside and therefore name of the petitioner has not teen mutated in revenue entries and therefore the application preferred by the petitioner has been correctly dismissed by Circle Officer,, Ranchi vide order dated 28 of December, 2007 In Mutation Case No. 8075 (R) -27 of 2006 -07 and the writ petition, therefore, deserve to be dismissed.
(3.) HAVING heard the counsel of both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case 1 hereby quash and set aside the order passed by Circle Officer, Ranchi dated 28 of December, 2007 in Mutation Case No. 8075 (R) -27 of 2006 -07 (Annexure -3 to the memo of petition) mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that petitioner's father purchased the property in question somewhere in the year 1961. Thereafter there was a construction upon the said property. After the super structure was constructed, there was a partition and the property in question has been allotted to the present petitioner being a coparcener of the joint Hindu family. (ii) It also appears that one Patru Oraon has preferred an application under Section 71 -A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. (iii) It appears that the aforesaid application wee converted into a Scheduled Area Regulation Case No. 14 of 1998 -99 and the same was decided by Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation, Ranchi by order dated 21st of January, 2000 (Annexure 1 to the memo of petition). (iv) This order has attained its finality a no appeal was preferred by the original applicant nor anyone else has preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order. On the contrary the order has been duly complied with because there was a direction to make payment of Rs. 8000/ - to the original application by the petitioner and the payment has also been made and the acknowledgment of the receipt of the amount is at Annexure -2. Thus the order passed by Special Officer, Ranchi dated 21st January, 2000 in a Scheduled Area Regulation Case No. 14 of 1998 -99 has not only attained its finality but has also been duly complied with. Looking to Annexure -2 to the memo of petition, it appear that thereafter the petitioner applied for insertion of his name in the revenue entries and his application has converted into a Mutation Case No. 8075(R) -27 of 2006 -07 which was decided by Circle Officer, Sadar Ranchi vide order dated 28 of December, 2007. Looking to this order and the reason given that the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi had passed one lump sum general order bearing bitter No. 725 dated 4 November, 2004 that similarly situated all such orders passed by Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation, Ranchi have been quashed and set aside and therefore his name is not mutated in the revenue entries. Though this order has been heavily relied upon by Circle Officer, Sadar Ranchi vide his impugned order dated 28 December, 2007 but never a copy of this letter or order passed by Deputy Commissioner Ranchi dated 4 November, 2004 was ever given to the petitioner. Even in the counter affidavit, this letter, which has been heavily relied upon in the impugned order, has not been annexed. Thus there is a gross violation of principles of natural justice. Nobody knows what is that order passed by Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi bearing letter No. 725 dated 4 November, 2004. Whether the said order is in favour of the petitioner or not that is also not known to the petitioner. It ought to be kept in mind by the authority that whenever any order is illegally passed by any Officer under Section 71A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 then it ought to be quashed and set aside in the appeal or the said order can also be taken in revision by the Government suo motu but there must be a separate order for every case and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the affected parties. In the facts and circumstances of the present case unilaterally. Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi cannot brush aside an order passed under Section 71 -A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act in a Schedule Area Regulation Case No. 14 of 1998 -99 dated 21st of January, 2000. Looking to the counter affidavit also, it is not clear that how this order was passed by Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, upon whose instruction and whether at the relevant time the affected parties were heard or not.;