[ 2025:JHHC:22003] 1 W.P. (C.) No. 6762 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 6762 of 2019 1. Majid Mian (Age about 58 years) S/o Late Islam Mian 2. Sanaul Mian (Age about 51 years) S/o Late Islam Mian Both the Petitioners are resident of Village Gopalpur, P.O. Parjori, P.S. Sarwan, District Deoghar (Jharkhand). ...... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi (Jharkhand) 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, P.O & P.S- Deoghar District - Deoghar 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, P.O & P.S- Deoghar, District - Deoghar 4. The Circle Officer, Sarwan, P.O. & P.S- Sarwan, Dist.- Deoghar (Jharkhand) 5. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical officer, Deoghar , P.O & P.S- Deoghar, District - Deoghar (Jharkhand) 6. Kuresha Bibi W/o Late Islam Mian, resident of village- Gopalpur, P.O.- Parjori, P.S.- Sarwan, Dist.- Deoghar (Jharkhand) 7. Aashma Khatoon, W/o Baharuddin Mian, D/o Late Islam Mian, resident of village- Paharpur, P.O.- Pakaria, P.S.- Sarath, Dist.- Deoghar (Jharkhand) ….. Respondents For the Petitioners : Mr. Amit Kumar Verma , Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, S.C. (L&C) I Mr. Prashant Kr. Rai, AC to S.C. (L&C) I P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Writ Petition Criminal has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer for issuance of a writ / order / direction or a writ for quashing the order dated 15.03.2018 (Annexure 8) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar as well as communication of such order by the Circle Officer, Sarwan (Annexure 5) vide Memo [ 2025:JHHC:22003] 2 W.P. (C.) No. 6762 of 2019 No. 201 dated 19.03.2018 of this writ petition, for cancellation of the Jamabandi of the petitioners in respect of the land in question, without any notice and opportunity to the petitioners to be heard, in violation of the principle of natural justice. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Godrej Sara Lee Ltd, vs. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum- Assessing Authority and Ors. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 95 and submits that in para 4 of the said judgment, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the exercise of writ powers conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is a power, plenary in nature and the mere fact that the petitioner before the high Court in a given case, has not pursued the alternative remedy available to him, it cannot be mechanically construed as a ground for its dismissal and availability of alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to the maintainability of the writ petition, hence, the High Court is required to examine whether an exceptional case has been made out while entertaining the writ petition, despite the writ petitioner, having not availed the alternative remedy. 4. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners by referring to para 16 of the supplementary counter affidavit that the respondent has admitted that the impugned order dated 15.03.2018, passed under Section 33 of the SPT Act against the petitioners, without hearing the petitioners, on the basis of the physical enquiry made by the Circle Officer, Sarwan hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this writ petition be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the State, fairly submits that the opportunity of being heard, was not provided by the respondent no. 2 before passing the impugned order. [ 2025:JHHC:22003] 3 W.P. (C.) No. 6762 of 2019 6. Having heard the submission made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, this Court is of the considered view that in view of the categorical admissions made by the respondent –State that the respondent no. 2 did not provide an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners before passing of the impugned order, the same is not sustainable in law having been passed in violation of the principle of Natural Justice, hence, this is a fit case, where the said order dated 15.03.2018 passed by the respondent no. 2, the copy of which is kept at Annexure 8 of this writ petition, is liable to be quashed and the case be remanded to the respondent no. 2 to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners by issuing notice to the same. 7. In view of the discussions made above, the order dated 15.03.2018 passed by the respondent no. 2, the copy of which is kept at Annexure 8 of this writ petition, is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent no. 2 to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners by issuing notice to them. 8. The petitioners are directed to appear before the respondent no. 2 on 02.09.2025 to take instructions from the respondent no. 2 regarding the further proceedings of the said case. 9. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 29th July, 2025 Smita /AFR