Disposed

Mohan Rabidas v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC6 Jul 2019WPC/1798/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought intervention to prevent dispossession of his allotted shop. The Court held that the grievance was redressed via an extension order dated 04.04.2016, rendering the petition infructuous, and disposed of the matter without further orders.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of as it had become infructuous following the extension of the shop allotment period.

Mohan Rabidas Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors. — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI. W.P. (C) No. 1798 of 2016

¶2

Mohan Rabidas … … Petitioner -V e r s u s- 1.The State of Jharkhand; 2.Deputy Commissioner, Godda 3.Block Development Officer, Pathergama, Godda … Respondents.

¶3

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶4

… For the Petitioner : - Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate. and Mr. Neetu Singh, Advocate.

¶5

For the Respondent-State: - Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, S.C. (L&C) III.

¶6

06/06.07.2019 This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the direction has been sought for upon the respondents to dispose of the Misc. Petition being Misc. Petition No. 22 of 2013, which is pending before the Deputy Commissioner, Godda, wherein, the issue raised by the petitioner pertains to question of allotment of shop in his favour.

¶7

It is the case of the petitioner that a shop has been settled, since some time in the year 2001-02 and thereafter, the petitioner having come to the possession of the said shop, running his business by making payment of regular rent. He has also constructed his shop on his own expenditure, but, since the settlement of shop is for a term, where he has filed Misc. Petition being Misc. Petition No. 22 of 2013, keeping the said Misc. Petition pending, without taking any decision, therefore, the instant writ petition has been filed.

¶8

Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, whereby and whereunder, inter alia, the stand has been taken that the apprehension of the petitioner that the Respondent No.3 would demolish his shop, is without any basis, since the allotment of shop has been extended from 01^st April, 2016 to March, 2021 vide order No. 240/A/B, dated 04.04.2016, passed by the Respondent No. 3 as also the order, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda in Misc. Petition No. 22 of 2013 and, as such, the writ petition has become infructuous, since the grievance, which has been agitated by the petitioner has been redressed.

¶9

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions, the instant writ petition has

¶10

been filed by the petitioner, apprehending that he will be dispossessed from his shop by its demolition, while according to the petitioner, the shop in question has allegedly been allotted in the year 2001-02 and when the term was expiring, he has made an application for extension of the said allotment order vide Misc. Petition No. 22 of 2013. It is apparent from the stand taken by the Respondents in the counter affidavit that the period of allotment has been extended up to month of March, 2021 vide order dated 04.04.2016 and therefore, the Misc. Petition has also been disposed of in terms of the said order of extension.

¶11

In view thereof, the grievance, as has been ventilated by the petitioner, has since been redressed, therefore, the instant writ petition has been rendered to be infructuous and, accordingly, stands disposed of.

¶12

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶13

APK

Mohan Rabidas v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Rabidas 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

Mukesh Kumar Burnwal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prasadi Sao Vs Rajendra Prasad Sao And Ors.

Aabid Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gopal Singh Bhumij Alias Gopal Bhumij Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Kanhai Soni Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Hamid Mian Vs the State of Jharkhand