Dismissed

Bhikhan Sao v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC20 Jun 2019WPC/6741/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an order declaring them encroachers on land under Khata No. 50. The High Court observed that the petitioners claimed title over land under Khata No. 49. Holding that the order did not pertain to the petitioners' claim, the writ petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the order pertained to a different Khata number than the one claimed by the petitioner.

Bhikhan Sao Vs the State of Jharkhand — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P (C) No. 6741 of 2018

¶3

Bhikhan Sao son of Late Jhari Sao.

¶4

Mitu Sao son of Late Jhari Sao.

¶5

Parmeshwar Sao son of Late Khosi Sao .…… Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

1.The State of Jharkhand.

¶8

2.Deputy Commissioner cum District Magistrate, Giridih. 3.Circle Officer, Dhanwar, District Giridih. …… Respondents

¶9

---------

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD ---------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Mr. A.K. Sahani, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Jagdeesh, A.C to G.P-V. -----------

¶11

8/Dated: 20^th June, 2019

¶12

This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the order passed under proceeding initiated to Jhakhand Public Land Encroachment Act whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been said to be encroacher and to that effect notice has been issued making reference of the encroachment made upon Khata No.50, Plot No.401 and 409 consists of an area of 20.25 Acre and 12.50 Acre respectively.

¶13

The petitioner has submitted detailed reply stating therein that he has purchased the land pertaining to Khata No.49, Plot No.401 and 409 and accordingly the Jamabandi has been created with respect to Khata no.49 and due rent receipts has been issued. The authority has not considered the said reply and passed an order declaring the petitioner to be an encroacher and cancelled the Jamabandi and thereafter directed the concerned authority to get the land free from encroachment as would be evident from order dated 01.10.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner cum District Magistrate, Giridih which is impugned in this writ petition.

¶14

Mr. Jagdeesh, learned A.C to G.P.-V for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner is claiming his rightful title over the Khata No.49 but the notice has been issued with respect to removal of encroachment from the land pertaining to Khata No.50 as would be evident from Annexure-4 annexed to the writ petition dated 01.06.2015 and the order passed by the competent authority or the appellate authority is with respect to

¶15

encroachment from the land pertaining to Khata No.50, therefore, the petitioner should not have any grievance.

¶16

He has further demonstrated that although the fact about encroachment to which the petitioner is concerned i.e. Khata No.50, nowhere this plea has been taken by the petitioner rather the petitioner has contested up to the level of the appellate he failed to understand as to why the petitioner has contested the case when notice has been issued upon encroachment of land pertaining to Khata no.50 while he is concerned with Khata no.49.

¶17

Upon this, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly admitted by submitting that it is a fact that the petitioner is concerned with Khata no.49.

¶18

In view thereof and taking into consideration the stand taken by the State respondent as referred above since petitioner is not concerned with Khata No.50 rather he has concerned with Khata No.49, therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to have any grievance.

¶19

In view thereof, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶20

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶21

Saket/-

Bhikhan Sao v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhikhan Sao 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

Triveni Das Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Gita Devi Vs Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Bijay Nath Verma Vs The Sail Bokaro Steel Plant Through Its Chief Executive Officer And Ors.

Dinanath Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Maa Kalyaneshwari Misthan Bhandar through Its Proprietor Asta Bihari Mudi Vs the Employees State Insurance Corporation

Md Ansar Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.