Disposed

Dr Sriram Pratap Sinha v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Feb 2021WPC/238/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking direction to resume issuance of rent receipts and decide representation regarding a disputed land. Court did not adjudicate merits but granted liberty to approach respondent with fresh representation for an informed decision.

What did the court decide?

liberty to prefer fresh representation; direction to respondent 4 to take informed decision within three months after hearing.

Dr Sriram Pratap Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand — Landlord and Tenant | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(C) No. 238 of 2021

¶4

Dr. Sriram Pratap Sinha … … Petitioner Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶7

The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad

¶8

The Circle Officer, Dhanbad Circle, Dhanbad... … Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶10

----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Varun Prabhakar, AC to GP-III -----

¶11

Order No. 02 Dated: 04.02.2021

¶12

The present writ petition is taken up today through Video conferencing.

¶13

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents, particularly the respondent no. 4 – Circle Officer, Dhanbad Circle, Dhanbad to resume the issuance of rent receipt in favour of the petitioner which has been stopped since the year 2011 for the land appertaining to Mouza-Hirapur, P.S.Dhanbad, P.S. No.-7, Plot No. 3218, Khata No. 136, District-Dhanbad, measuring an area of 5 Katthas. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 2 – the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi to decide the petitioner’s representation wherein he has described the entire litigation history of the land for taking appropriate decision by the said authority.

¶14

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Sri Rama Prasad Singh along with subsequent purchasers of the land filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 854 of 1982(R) before the Patna High Court (Ranchi Bench) against the order of the Additional Collector, Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner passed under Section 4H of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. The High court vide order dated 10.04.1989 disposed of the writ petition declaring the impugned orders passed by the said authorities as illegal and accordingly, those orders were quashed. The respondent authorities,

¶15

¶16

however, did not challenge the said order of the High Court and thus, the same became final and binding on the parties.

¶17

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the land in question was thereafter purchased by one Smt. Gayatri Devi vide sale deed no. 2001 dated 25.03.1987 and her name was mutated vide Mutation Case No. 336(ii)/1992-93. The petitioner purchased the said land from Smt. Gayatri Devi vide sale deed no. 1047 dated 14.02.1993. Thereafter, the petitioner came in peaceful possession of the land and his name was mutated vide Mutation Case No. 131(ii)/1993-94 by issuing correction slip dated 19.07.1993. The Municipal Corporation, Dhanbad also issued holding number in the name of the petitioner and his name was thereafter entered in Register-II. The petitioner started paying rent and the rent receipts were issued. Thereafter, in the year 2018, policy decision was taken to undertake the process of accepting rents after conducting appropriate enquiry. In this regard, the respondent no. 2 issued one letter on 15.07.2020, addressed to all the Deputy Commissioners of the State of Jharkhand stating that immediate and expeditious process be undertaken to accept the rents from the land owners after ascertaining the title and possession by making due enquiry. The petitioner approached the respondent authorities, particularly the respondent nos. 2 and 3 for taking appropriate decision on the basis of the available documents specifically the judgment passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 854 of 1982(R). The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that long standing possession cannot be questioned, once the matter has been settled by this Court.

¶18

4. Mr. Varun Prabhakar, AC to GP-III appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that if the petitioner prefers a fresh representation before the respondent no. 4 on the present issue, an appropriate decision in accordance with law will be taken by the said authority.

¶19

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of prayer made in the writ petition, without entering into the merit of the case, the petitioner is given

¶20

¶21

liberty to prefer a fresh representation before the respondent no. 4 on the present issue. On receipt of the said representation, the respondent no. 4 after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/his representative and on verifying the relevant records, shall take an informed decision in this regard within a period of three months from the date of filing of the representation.

¶22

6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid liberty and direction.

¶23

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶24

Manish

Dr Sriram Pratap Sinha v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Sriram Pratap Sinha 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kali Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Karmu Ram Nayak Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Ms Kamalalaya Colour Lab Studio through Its Authorised Signatory Cum Manager Sri Subhendu Neogi Vs State Bank of India through Assistant General Manager Stressed Assets Management Branch

Kumari Gaytri Vs State of Jharkhand

S G Projects Ltd. through Its Director Ajay Singh Vs Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. through Its Managing Director

Smt Rajni Kaur Vs State of Jharkhand