Disposed

Akhileshwar Narayan Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC7 Nov 2019WPC/5545/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 regarding the stoppage of rent receipts, the court, without adjudicating on merits, directed the competent authority to decide the petitioner's claim within eight weeks of receiving a fresh representation and to pass a speaking order in case of an adverse decision.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file fresh representation within three weeks; authority to decide within eight weeks and pass speaking order if adverse.

Akhileshwar Narayan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No.5545 of 2019

¶3

Akhileshwar Narayan Singh . … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand.

¶6

The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro.

¶7

The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Bokaro.

¶8

The Circle Officer, Chas-Bokaro, Bokaro.

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶12

------For the Petitioner : Mr. V.K. Prasad Advocate Mr. Ashish Kr. Thakur, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ankit Kumar, AC to GP-IV ----------------------------

¶13

03 / Dated 07^th November, 2019

¶14

The writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder direction has been sought for upon the respondents to show cause as to why and under what authority of law they have stopped issuance of rent receipt in favour of the petitioner with respect to the lands of Mauza-Barhariya, Mauza No.28, Khewat No.02, Khata No.1, Plot No.1, area 53 decimal, Plot No.2095, area 125 acres and plot No.2126, area 35 acres.

¶15

Mr. Ankit Kumar, learned AC to GP-IV appearing for the respondents has fairly submitted that the writ petition may be disposed of directing the competent authority to take decision in the matter in accordance with law.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also consented to such submission of the learned State counsel.

¶17

Having heard learned counsel for the parties with their consent and without entering into the merit of the claim of the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to file fresh representation within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of

¶18

the copy of the order by giving therein all details pertaining to his claim before the concerned competent authority.

¶19

The concerned authority shall take decision, if not already taken, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of such representation in accordance with law.

¶20

Needless to say that if any adverse decision would be taken, the same shall be communicated to the petitioner by passing a speaking order.

¶21

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶22

Saurabh

Akhileshwar Narayan Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhileshwar Narayan Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Jyanti Munda Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief Secretary And Ors.

Famica Press Industries P Limited through Jairam Prasad Singh Vs Bank of India through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Indrajeet Singh Saluja Vs Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority through Its Managing Director

Suyogya Topno Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jivani Devi Vs State of Jharkhand

Bhagwan Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand