Disposed

Karu Mian and Anr. v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Jharkhand HC24 Feb 2020WPC/4180/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order overturning title based on a disputed 'Kurfa' document. The court held that being a question of fact, it was not manageable under writ jurisdiction, leaving the petitioners to seek relief from the Civil Court.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to approach the Civil Court for redressal.

Karu Mian and Anr. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors. — Jharkhand HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 4180 of 2014

¶2

1.Karu Mian

¶3

Lutan Ansari @ Lutan Mian

¶4

Both sons of Late Julabi Mian, residents of village-Madhuban, P.O. – Taljhari, P.S. Jarmundi (Taljhari), District- Dumka

¶5

…… Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Most, Anpi Kunai, wife of Late Baldeo Kunai,

¶9

Gopal Kunai, son of late Baldeo Kunai,

¶10

Rohit Kunai, son of late Baldeo Kunai, Respondents no. 3 & 4 both are minors and represented through mother Most. Anpi Kunai,

¶11

Respondents. No. 2, 3 and 4 are residents of village-Madhuban, P.S. Jarmundi (Taljhari), P.O. –Taljhari, District-Dumka

¶12

…… Respondents

¶13

---------

¶14

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶15

--------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Shekhar Pd. Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent-State: Mr. Navin Kumar, G.P-IV Mr. Shweta Kumari, A.C. to G.P.-IV

¶16

10/Dated: 24/02/2020

¶17

Heard Mr. Shekhar Pd. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners,

¶18

Ms. Shweta Kumari, learned counsel for the respondent-State.

¶19

Petitioners have preferred this writ petition for setting aside order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the learned Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka in connection with S.P. Rev. Misc. Appeal No. 198 of 1988-89.

¶20

Mr. Shekhar Pd. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the learned Commissioner has not considered the document namely, Kurfa which is in favour of the petitioner- Karu Mian.

¶21

Ms. Shweta Kumari, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that this is disputed question of fact which cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction.

¶22

In view of above facts and considering that the dispute with regard to Kurfa, cannot be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As disputed question of facts are involved in this writ petition, no relief can be extended to the petitioners. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of with

¶23

liberty to approach before the appropriate Civil Court for rederessal of grievance.

¶24

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶25

Satyarthi/

Karu Mian and Anr. v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karu Mian and Anr. v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

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

MD Habibur Rahman Vs Human Resources Department

Madan Munda Vs State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner Ramgarh and Anr.

Council for Agriculture Industrialization and Rural Employment through Its Secretary Vs Union of India through Ministry of Health through Its Secretary and Ors.

Arvind Kumar Singh and Anr. Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Registrar Co. Operative and Ors.

Raj Kumar and Ors. Vs Mahendra Pratap Singh and Ors.

Aloke Steels Industries Private Limited through Its Director Ram Chandra Rungta Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Industries Department and Ors.