Disposed

Bhanu Gorai v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Jharkhand HC8 Aug 2016WPC/6348/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a Vikash Pustika claiming displaced person status under the Swarnrekha Project regarding a plot acquired after his father's death. The court disposed of the petition without comments on merits, directing the petitioner to pursue representations with documents before the authority.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pursue representation before the respondent authority with facts and documents.

Bhanu Gorai Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors. — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 6348 of 2013

¶2

Bhanu Gorai -------Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand

¶5

The Additional Director, Swarnrekha Project, Saraikella-Kharsawan

¶6

The Rehabilitation Officer No. 2, ---

¶7

Swarnrekha Project, Saraikella-Kharsawan --- Respondents

¶8

CORAM: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh

¶9

For the Petitioner: Mr. Prakash Chandra, Advocate For the Resp - State: Mr. Ashish Kr. Thakur, JC to SC(L&C)

¶10

¶11

05/ 08.08.2016 Heard counsel for the parties.

¶12

Petitioner seeks issuance of Vikash Pustika claiming himself to be in the category of displaced persons under the Swarnrekha Project, Chandil.

¶13

Petitioner contends that the plot under khata no. 691 in Mouza-Moisara recorded in the name of his father late Radanath Gorai, was acquired for the said project and compensation was also paid to his father and Rehabilitation Family Development Book was issued in the name of his father and after his death, it was issued in the name of his mother Manzi Gwalin who is living separately since long. Petitioner claims to be entitled to a separate Rehabilitation Family Development Book. Therefore, petitioner has approached this Court. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the orders passed in some other writ petitions being WPC No. 7374/2011 and 2601/2011, wherein on similar plea, the Respondent authorities / Rehabilitation Officer, Swarnrekha Project, Chandil had been directed to consider the representation of such persons and take a decision.

¶14

Counter affidavit has not been filed in the matter, though it is pending since October 2013.

¶15

In that view of the matter, without expressing any comments on the merits of the case of the parties, writ petition is being disposed of so that the petitioner may pursue his representation for the instant grievances before the Respondent No. 2 / competent authority, duly supported with all necessary facts and documents, which may be considered in accordance with law, within a reasonable time.

¶16

Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶17

( Aparesh Kumar Singh, J )

¶18

Ranjeet/

Bhanu Gorai v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanu Gorai v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anashtasia Kujur and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Emelda Minz Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Jerodina Kujur Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Ms Sayeed Akhtar Through Its Proprietor Sayeed Akhtar Vs Drinking Water And Sanitation

Ms Index Suppliers Private Limited Through One Of Its Directors Devendra Kumar Singhania Vs The Authorised Officer State Bank Of India And Anr.

Samchand Manjhi Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.