Dismissed

Vijay Kumar Mandal Alias Vijay Mandal v. the State of Jharkhand through the Collector Deoghar and Ors.

Jharkhand HC5 Jan 2016WPC/7178/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking mutation of 3 acres of land. The State argued the petitioner was not in possession and the matter was under CBI investigation. Finding identical pleas regarding possession in title suit proceedings, the court declined to issue a direction.

What did the court decide?

None. The petition is dismissed.

Vijay Kumar Mandal Alias Vijay Mandal Vs the State of… — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No. 7178 of 2013

¶3

VIJAY KUMAR MANDAL @ VIJAY MANDAL, S/O LATE DAMODAR MANDAL, R/O VILLAGE-BELAN BAZAR, P.O.- MUNGER, P.S.- KASIM BAZAR, DISTRICT- MUNGER (BIHAR) … … PETITIONER

¶4

VERSUS

¶5

THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE COLLECTOR, DEOGHAR, P.O. & P.S.- DEOGHAR, DISTRICT- DEOGHAR (JHARKHAND)

¶6

THE COLLECTOR, DEOGHAR, P.O. & P.S.- DEOGHAR DISTRICTDEOGHAR (JHARKHAND)

¶7

THE COMMISSIONER, SANTHAL PARGANA DIVISION, P.O. & P.S.- DEOGHAR, DISTRICT- DEOGHAR (JHARKHAND)

¶8

THE CIRCLE OFFICER, DEOGHAR, P.O. & P.S.- DEOGHAR, DISTRICT- DEOGHAR (JHARKHAND) ..... … RESPONDENTS

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

¶10

FOR THE PETITIONER : MR. H.C. PRASAD, ADV FOR THE STATE : MR. MANOJ KR., SC (MINES)

¶11

6/ Dated: 05^th January, 2016 Per SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J.

¶12

Seeking a direction upon the respondent-Authority to

¶13

take a final decision on applications dated 13.02.2012 and 10.10.2012 seeking mutation in respect to 3 acres of land in favour of the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶14

2. Mr. H.C. Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶15

submits that through a deed of Exchange and Gift executed on 15.01.1932, the land comprised in Plot No.590 within VillageShyamganj, Deoghar Town, Deoghar ad-measuring about 3 acres was conveyed in favour of Shivnandan Mandal, the grandfather of the petitioner. The said Shivnandan Mandal exercised his right, title, interest and possession over the said land however,

¶16

¶17

subsequently, due to family business of the petitioner at Munger (Bihar), the name of the ancestors of the petitioner could not be entered in the revenue record. Subsequently, in a family partition effected on 25.01.1984, the land in question came in share of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted applications dated 13.02.2012 and 10.10.2012 for mutation of the land in Plot No.590 in his name however, the respondent-Authorities have not taken a final decision and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶18

3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand submits that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the trial court in Title Suit No.36 of 1976 whereby, application under Order I Rule 10 CPC has been rejected on 27.06.2012. The writ petition being W.P.(C) No.7228 of 2012 challenging order dated 27.06.2012 in Title Suit No.36 of 1976 was dismissed as withdrawn. The claim of the petitioner that the land in question was granted through deed of Exchange and Gift executed on 15.01.1932 has been disbelieved by the trial court. Reiterating the stand taken in the counter-affidavit, the learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand further submits that there has been a land scam at Deoghar and the matter is under investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

¶19

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the property in question in Title Suit No.36 of 1976 was comprised in Plot No.599 whereas, the claim of the petitioner is on

¶20

¶21

Plot No.590 over 3 acres of land.

¶22

5. I have carefully perused the documents on record. A perusal of the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC filed by the petitioner in Title Suit No.36 of 1976 and order dated 27.06.2012 whereby, the application for impleadment has been rejected, would disclose that the petitioner has reiterated identical facts as disclosed in the writ petition. The trial court after noticing the plea raised by the petitioner/applicant and the parties to Title Suit No.36 of 1976 has observed that the property was in possession of Deoghar Municipality. It was specifically asserted by the defendant that the petitioner was not in possession of the land in question. In the counter-affidavit filed in the present proceeding, the respondent-State of Jharkhand has taken a plea that the petitioner is not in possession of the land comprised in Plot No.590. Though the application for impleadment was rejected on the ground of delay, in view of the fact that the parties took plea identical to the plea raised in the present proceeding and the petitioner withdrew the writ petition challenging order dated 27.06.2012, no direction can be issued to the respondents in the present writ petition.

¶23

6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶24

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

¶25

R.K.

Vijay Kumar Mandal Alias Vijay Mandal v. the State of Jharkhand through the Collector Deoghar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar Mandal Alias Vijay Mandal v. the State of Jharkhand through the Collector Deoghar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kawleshwar Pandey Vs Collectariate

Kaushlya Devi Vs Chief Secretory

Ms Deepanshu Promoters and Builders Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Namely Shankar Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Yogendra Kumar Shyam Vs Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas

Central Coalfields Limited through Its General Manager Cum Project Officer Sri Ram Vinay Singh Vs Mines and Geology

Rahul Shankar Tiwary Vs Jharkhand Academic Council