Disposed

Saro Manjhian v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC6 Nov 2019WPC/6456/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged attempts to dispossess the petitioner of land claimed to be State property. The Court deemed it inappropriate to interfere with the title dispute directly. Instead, the petitioner was directed to approach the Circle Officer with relevant documents to establish her case, with a time-bound framework for the authority to decide.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach the Circle Officer to establish title within two weeks; concerned authority to pass a decision within further three weeks; writ petition and I.A. disposed of.

Saro Manjhian Vs the State of Jharkhand — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P (C) No. 6456 of 2018

¶3

Saro Manjhian .…… Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

1.The State of Jharkhand. 2.Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. 3.Circle Officer, Karandih, Jamshedpur. 4.Sub Divisional Officer, Dhalbhum, Dist-East Singhbhum.

¶6

5.Mango Notified Area Committee through its Chief Executive Officer, having its office at Mango, P.O. & P.S-Mango, Town-Jamshedpur, Dist-East Singhbhum. …… Respondents

¶7

--------CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD NARAYAN PRASAD ---------- For the Petitioner : M/s A.K. Das & Swati Shalini, Adv. For the State : Mr. J.F. Toppo, S.C (L & C) III. For the Respondent No.5 : Mr. Amarendra Kumar, Adv. -----------

¶8

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

¶9

8/Dated: 06^th November, 2019

¶10

This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has sought for direction to restrain the respondents from disturbing the possession of the petitioner over lands admeasuring 0.22.50 Hectares situated over Plot No.1628 and lands admeasuring 0.19.30 Hectares situated over Plot No.1624, both in Khata No.908, Ward No.9 of Mango Notified Area Committee.

¶11

It is the grievance of the petitioner that she is in peaceful possession since the year 1945 and as such without providing an opportunity steps are being taken to get the land vacate, therefore, the present writ petition.

¶12

Counter affidavit has been filed wherein the State respondents has taken stand that the land is in the name of Anabad Bihar Sarkar as would appear from Annexure-1, however, no rejoinder to the said counter affidavit has been filed but it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entry made in the record of right is due to erroneous reason and as such petitioner may be provided an opportunity to satisfy the authority before taking any decision to evict her from the possession of the land in question.

¶13

This Court after having heard learned counsel for the parties and looking to the question of dispute of title of the land in question, deem it fit and proper not to interfere with the matter, however, the petitioner is at liberty to approach before the concerned authority i.e. respondent no.3-Circle

¶14

Officer, Karandih, Jamshedpur within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order to establish her case by bringing relevant documents upon which she wants to rely upon.

¶15

If the petitioner does not file appropriate application within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, the concerned authority shall take decision in the matter in accordance with law by passing speaking order within a further period of three weeks.

¶16

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶17

Consequently, I.A. No.444 of 2019 also stands disposed of.

¶18

Future action would depend upon the final decision taken by the concerned authority as directed.

¶19

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶20

Saket/-

Saro Manjhian v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saro Manjhian 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bishnu Kumar Singh And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Ms Abhoy Enterprises through Its Partner Sri Binay Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Rural Development Department

Mohasi Bibi Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

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