Appellate Authority Must Set Aside Impugned Order While Remanding Back Matter And Fix Clear Timelines: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court has held that an appellate authority, while remanding a matter for fresh adjudication, should definitely set aside the impugned order and lay down clear timelines to prevent further delay in adjudication.

Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary, presiding over the case, observed, “When a case is remanded for the matter to be decided afresh, it was incumbent on the part of the appellate court to have set aside the impugned order, which has not been done in the present case.”

The Court further stressed on the importance of procedural safeguards, stating, “Whenever the matter is remanded, a date should be fixed for appearance of the parties before the Court below, and a time frame also needs to be given within which the said matter needs to be disposed of.”

Moreover, the Court noted the avoidable delay in relegating the matter to the Circle Officer, stating, “Furthermore, in order avoid any delay instead of relegating the matter to the Circle Officer, it was the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Giridih who could have taken the relevant documents and pass an order for mutation.”

The above ruling came in writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for direction upon the Circle Officer, Giridhi, seeking a show cause as to why the disputed land was not mutated in favour of the petitioner.

As per the factual matrix of the case, the petitioner, Mohammad Sarfaraj Mirza's mutation application was rejected by the Circle Officer on the ground that he had not produced the relevant land documents.

Aggrieved by the rejection, the petitioner appealed before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Giridih which was remanded back to the Circle Officer for passing order afresh after hearing the appellant. Thereafter, the petitioner had to move the High Court seeking a direction upon the Circle Officer to expedite the hearing and disposal

During the proceedings before the High Court, counsel for the State pointed out that there were material discrepancies in the order said to be passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Giridih in which neither the date had been mentioned not it had been stated that the order passed by the Circle Officer has been set aside.

The High Court in its judgement stated, “I find that the order passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Giridih is cryptic in nature, as even the date has not been mentioned in the said order, which has been annexed with the writ petition.”

The Court noted, “Further, there are discrepancies also in the number of the case as mentioned in the order passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Giridih.”

Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the petition and directed the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Giridih to, “pass order afresh in Case No. R 804/2023-2024 within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.”

Case Title: Mohammad Sarfaraj Mirza v. State of Jharkhand and Others.

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 38

Click Here To Read Judgement