AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. - (1.) WITH the consent of both the parties this application is being finally disposed of at the stage of admission itself.
(2.) IN the present writ application the petitioners have made two fold prayers. Firstly, to quash Annexure -3 dated 06/11/2004, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, whereby the order was passed to lodged First Information Report against Alok Kumar Choudhary, Om Prakash Chawnika and Kumud Kumar Jha for commission of the alleged offences under Sections 423, 420 and 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code. It was further directed to issue notice to Thakur Prasad Hansda to show cause as to why the departmental proceeding be not initiated against him. Secondly, that the respondents be restrained from interfering with the right, title interest and possession of the petitioners, or the persons claiming through them over the land in question. The background of the case of the petitioners is that these two writ petitioners herein were among the five writ petitioners, who had filed a writ petition before this Court being CWJC No. 2082/1996 (R). The said writ petition was finally disposed of on 6/2/2004 by allowing the writ petition and by quashing the order as contained in Annexure -10 to the said writ petition, solely on the ground that the successor Minister, who had passed the order as contained in Annexure -10 to the said writ petition, has no jurisdiction to review the earlier order passed by his predecessor Minister, which was in the nature of a quasi -judicial order passed and was passed under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Admittedly, by order dated 10/12/1990 the Minister of Revenue, Land Reforms, Government of Bihar had passed a quasi -judicial order, wherein he had held that under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 after treating the family of Ranu Preety Mukherjee as four units the land, which was declared as surplus, be released. This order of the Revenue Minister, which has been annexed as Annexure -6 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners, was subsequently, reviewed by the successor Minister by issue of Annexure -10 in the aforesaid earlier writ petition and now it has been annexed as Annexure -9 to the supplementary affidavit of the present writ petition whereby he by reviewing the order of his predecessor Minister, affirmed the order dated 29.12.1986 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The judgment of this Court in the aforesaid CWJC No. 2082/1996(R) has been annexed as Annexure -1 to the present writ petition. It appears that after relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Patel Narshi Thakershi and Ors. v. Pradyunanshinghji Arjunsinghji, reported in : AIR1970SC1273 and in the case of Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya Sitapur, reported in : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) it was held that the successor Minister had no jurisdiction to review the quasi -judicial order passed by his predecessor Minister.
(3.) IT is asserted that after the aforesaid judgment of this Court in CWJC No. 2082/1996 (R), the writ petitioners through their power -of -attorney holder executed registered sale deeds on 27.10.2004, 28.10.2004 and 29.10.2004 in favour of M/s. Bool Builders Pvt. Limited. It is further stated that the aforesaid judgment of this Court in aforesaid CWJC No. 2082/ 1996 (R) was never challenged before any Forum and the said judgment became final and binding on all the parties. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the Deputy Commissioner by issue of letter dated 2.11.2004 constituted a committee for submissions of a report in respect of the land in question and the report was submitted on 6.11.2004 as contained in Annexure -2 to the present writ petition and on the basis of that report Annexure -3 has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner which is absolutely illegal and against the judgment of this Court passed in the aforesaid CWJC No. 2082/ 1996 (R). ;