Dismissed

Rameshwar Thakur And Ors. v. Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Jharkhand HC17 Jul 2019WPC/2141/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the disbursement of land acquisition compensation. The court held the petition became infructuous as the underlying partition suit was disposed of against the petitioners. Permission to amend the prayer was denied as the original basis was lost. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the appellate cour

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioner, with liberty to approach the appellate court.

Rameshwar Thakur And Ors. Vs Land Reforms And Revenue Department — Partition | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P (C) No. 2141 of 2017

1.Rameshwar Thakur.

2.Dhaneshwar Thakur.

3.Mithlesh Thakur.

All sons of Late Jethu Thakur, residents of village Chino Saunda, P.O. Saunda, P.S Dumri, District Giridih.

¶7

4.Chhakan Thakur son of Late Babulal Thakur, resident of village Kulgo, P.O. Kulgo, P.S. Dumri, District Giridih. .…… Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

1.State of Jharkhand.

¶10

2.Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand.

¶11

3.Deputy Commissioner, Giridih.

¶12

4.Land Acquisition Officer, Giridih.

¶13

5.Union of India.

¶14

6.Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and National Highway, Government of India, New Delhi.

¶15

7.Dular Chand Thakur son of Late Banwari Thakur.

¶16

8.Most Jubli widow of Late Budhan Thakur.

¶17

9.Most Munia Devi widow of Banwari Thakur.

¶18

10.Ashok Thakur son of Late Prasadi Thakur.

¶19

11.Kiran Devi widow of Late Nageshwar Thakur.

¶20

12.Kiteshwar Thakur son of Late Amrit Thakur. …… Respondents

¶21

---------

¶22

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶23

----------

¶24

For the Petitioner : Mr. Birju Thakur, Adv. For the State : Mr. Navin Kumar, G.P.IV. For the Respondent Nos.7 to 11 : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Adv. -----------

¶25

9/Dated: 17^th July, 2019

¶26

The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for restraining the respondent from disbursing the amount in favour of respondent nos.7 to 12 of the acquired land for widening of National Highway till the decision of Partition Suit No.76 of 2003 and Misc. Case No.01 of 2013.

¶27

It is admitted case of the petitioner that during pendency of the writ petition Partition Suit No.76 of 2003 and Misc. Case No.01 of 2013 have been disposed of. Against the judgment passed therein petitioners have filed Civil Appeal No.11 of 2019 and therefore, the petitioners have filed interlocutory application for altering the prayer to the effect to restrain the respondents not to disburse the amount of compensation till the pendency of Civil Appeal No.11 of 2019.

¶28

Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the private respondent 7 to 11 has submitted that original prayer made in the writ petition since pertains to passing of restrainment order in disbursing the amount of compensation in favour of respondent no.7 to 11 during pendency of the Partition Suit No.76 of 2003 and since Partition Suit No.76 of 2003 has also been disposed of while answering the issue against the petitioner, therefore, the writ petition may be rendered to be infructuous.

¶29

His further submission is that in addition any prayer as has been sought for by way of interlocutory application for passing a restrainment in disbursing the amount during pendency of Civil Appeal No.11 of 2019 is totally a fresh cause of action, therefore, it cannot be incorporated in the writ petition since the original prayer made in the writ petition has become infructuous after disposal of Partition Suit No.76 of 2003.

¶30

This Court after considering the submission advanced on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the prayer made in the writ petition which pertains to restraining the respondent in disbursing the amount of compensation till the decision of Partition Suit No.76 of 2003 which has been decided against the petitioner and therefore, the writ petitioner will be said to lost its force.

¶31

Further, if the prayer which has been sought to be amended by making addition in the original writ petition, if it would be allowed it will amount to allowing the prayer in a writ petition which has lost its force.

¶32

The question of amendment of a petition could arise only if the original prayer made in the original writ petition survives and the moment the prayer made in the original writ petition has lost its force there cannot be addition of prayer.

¶33

Upon this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach before the appellate court for seeking relief.

¶34

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid.

¶35

In consequence, I.A. No.4036 of 2019 also stands disposed of.

¶36

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶37

Saket/-

Rameshwar Thakur And Ors. v. Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rameshwar Thakur And Ors. v. Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Chandra Construction Through Its Proprietor Kameshwar Prasad Yadav Vs The Union Of India Through Ministry Of Road Transport Andhighways And Ors.

Safiran Bibi Alias Sabiran Bibi And Anr. Vs Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Dil Mohammad Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Santoshini Murmu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rbc Skb Unifour through Its Authorized Signatory Shoaib Anwar Vs Central Coalfield Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Safaul Rahman Vs Mohammad Khalil