Partly allowed

Darpa Hari Mandal v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Jharkhand HC5 Nov 2019WPC/6358/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed the writ petition filed under Article 226 challenging an order under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 2018. The petitioner sought to overcome preliminary objections regarding the alternative remedy of revision. The Court granted liberty to approach the revisional authority within three weeks, allowing consideration of the limitation issue.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the revisional authority within three weeks; writ petition disposed of.

Darpa Hari Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its… — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 6358 of 2018

¶3

-----

¶4

Darpa Hari Mandal Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶7

2.Additional Dy. Collector, Seraikella-Kharsawan

¶8

3.Sub Divisional Officer, Chandil, Seraikella-Kharsawan

¶9

4.Hari Pada Singh

¶10

5.Lal Singh .… … ... Respondents

¶11

-----

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶13

----- For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For the Res-State : Mr. Rupesh Singh, G.P. V -----

¶14

Order No. 07 : Dated 5th November, 2019

¶15

This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder order dated 25.09.2018 passed by the appellate authority under Section 215 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, has been assailed.

¶16

Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned G.P. V appearing for the respondents-State of Jharkhand has raised preliminary objection on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of revision as provided under Section 217 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908.

¶17

Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner, upon this, has sought for permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach before the revisional authority having its jurisdiction.

¶18

However, he has submitted that the writ petition has been filed before expiry of period of limitation for filing revision before the revisional authority, but now the period for filing revision has expired, as such issue of limitation will also come

¶19

in the way of the petitioner, therefore, he has sought for an observation from this Court by giving direction upon the authority to consider the the issue of limitation.

¶20

This Court, having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and taking into consideration the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents regarding availability of alternative remedy of revision, deem it fit and proper to grant liberty to the petitioner to approach before the revisional authority within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶21

If such revision is filed within a period of three weeks, the revisional authority shall consider the issue of limitation in accordance with law.

¶22

With the liberty aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed

¶23

of.

¶24

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶25

Alankar/-

Darpa Hari Mandal v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Darpa Hari Mandal v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

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

Dayal Kumar Ishwar Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Rajendra Prasad Sharma And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Amiya Kumar Jha Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner

Sumit Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sahid Raghunath Mahto Inter Mahavidyalaya through Its Secretary Keshav Mahto Kamlesh Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Tahir Mian Alias Tahir Ansari Alias MD Tahir Vs Mansur Khan