Samuel Mumru ? Salo Murmu Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....for the petitioners nobody appeared and made any request nor any step for conducting the said case has been taken. under the circumstances, the interim relief granted earlier is required to be vacated. moreover, on merit also it appears that the order passed by the learned deputy commissioner appears to be in accordance with law and the learned deputy commissioner, after careful consideration of the facts and circumstances involved in the matter as also keeping in mind the provision as contained in santhal pargana tenancy act has rightly and properly passed the order in the interest of justice and therefore the said order is not required to be disturbed. therefore, this petition stands dismissed. the interim order passed earlier stands vacated. the respondent no.4 be extended the benefit as per order passed by learned deputy commissioner. copy of this order be sent to the respondent no. 4 by the court. . (p.p. bhatt, j) sd

Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND,RANCHI. W.P(C)No. 5162 of 2005 Samuel Murmu @Salo Murmu ................................. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand &Ors. . ...............................Respondents For the Petitioner : None For the Respondent-State : Mr. Shyam Narsaria J.C to S.C(L &C) CORAM :- HONBLE MR. JUSTICE P.P.BHATT . . Order No. 2 Dated 15th April,2013 The present petitioner by way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for quashing the order dated 1.8.2005 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj (Respondent no.2) in R.M.P No. 27 of 2004-05 whereby the learned Deputy Commissioner decided that Baha Murmu (Respondent no.4) is entitled to the half share of the land in question during her life time for maintaining herself and that she will not sell the same without permission of the court. Heard the learned counsel for the Respondent-State Government. The learned counsel for the petitioner, despite given reasonable opportunity, has not remained present in court. The present writ petition is of the year 2005 and after preliminary hearing of the writ petition the order passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner was ordered to be stayed. Today this matter is ordered to be listed under the category of orders/final disposal(matter related to stay of lower court proceedings)and such matter cannot be allowed to linger indefinitely without any reasonable cause shown by the learned counsel for the petitioner and despite various opportunities given to the learned counsel for the petitioners nobody appeared and made any request nor any step for conducting the said case has been taken. Under the circumstances, the interim relief granted earlier is required to be vacated. Moreover, on merit also it appears that the order passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner appears to be in accordance with law and the learned Deputy Commissioner, after careful consideration of the facts and circumstances involved in the matter as also keeping in mind the provision as contained in Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act has rightly and properly passed the order in the interest of justice and therefore the said order is not required to be disturbed. Therefore, this petition stands dismissed. The interim order passed earlier stands vacated. The respondent no.4 be extended the benefit as per order passed by learned Deputy Commissioner. Copy of this order be sent to the respondent no. 4 by the court. . (P.P. Bhatt, J) SD