Dismissed

Jitu Bhumij v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Jan 2020C.M.P./94/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought modification of an order dated 14.08.2018 to correct an error in a land survey number (Khata No.). The court declined to modify the order as a letters patent appeal was already pending against it, advising the petitioner to raise the grievance in that appeal.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner advised to move before the Hon'ble Division Bench in pending Letters Patent Appeal; present petition disposed of.

Jitu Bhumij Vs the State of Jharkhand — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

C.M.P. No. 94 of 2019

¶3

Jitu Bhumij aged about 69 years son of Late Doman Bhumij, resident of Village Halud Boni, P.O. Tata Nagar, P.S. Parsudih, District (East Singhbhum) … … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Commissioner, South C.N. Division, P.O. and P.S. Bariatu District Ranchi

¶7

Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, P.O. and P.S. Bistupur Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum

¶8

Special Officer, Scheduled Areas Regulation, Jamshedpur, Town Jamshedpur, P.O. and P.S. Bistupur, District East Singhbhum

¶9

Rajendra Prasad son of Late Ramnath Prasad, resident of Halud Boni, P.S.Parsudih, District Singhbhum East

¶10

… … Respondents

¶11

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶13

¶14

For the Petitioner : Mr. D.K. Karmakar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, Advocate

¶15

¶16

5/17.01.2020

¶17

Heard Mr. D.K. Karmakar, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition has been filed for modification of order dated 14.08.2018 in as much as the Khata number which has been mentioned in paragraph 3 of the order under modification has been wrongly mentioned at Khata No. 164 instead of Khata No. 184. He submits that this error has crept up in the writ petition itself although in the connected records of S.A.R. Case No. 27 of 1996-97 and S.A.R. Appeal No. 59 of 1997-98 the Khata No. has been rightly mentioned as 184. Learned counsel further submits that the error has actually cropped in the order passed by the learned Commissioner in Revenue Revision Case No. 121 of 1998 wherein the Khata number has been mentioned as 164 instead of Khata No. 184.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 5

¶20

opposes the prayer and submits that one Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order sought to be modified and accordingly any modification in the order may have direct bearing in the pending Letters Patent Appeal. He also submits that if the petitioner has any grievance, he may move before the Hon’ble Division Bench where the connected L.P.A. is pending so that their grievance may also be taken care of by the Hon’ble Division Bench.

¶21

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that the appeal has been filed against the order sought to be modified dated 14.08.2018 passed in W.P. (C) No. 3896 of 2003, this court is not inclined to modify the order.

¶22

However, the petitioner, is so advised may bring his grievance to the notice of the Hon’ble Division Bench in pending Letters Patent Appeal.

¶23

This petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶24

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶25

Binit/

Jitu Bhumij v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitu Bhumij 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

Goutam Ghosh Vs State of Jharkhand

Parimal Kumar Singh Alias Bhupendra Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the CBI

Bauna Tirkey Vs State of Jharkhand

Sachchidanand Mishra Vs State of Jharkhand

Mahendra Ram Vs the C M D Tata Steel Ltd.

Vikash Tiwary Vs the State of Jharkhand