Dismissed

Kali Mandal v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Jharkhand HC3 Feb 2021WPC/34/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a notice to cancel a long-standing Jamabandi and sought compensation for land acquisition. The High Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable at this stage as the petitioner has ample opportunity to present his case before the Circle Officer.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable at this stage. The petitioner is at liberty to appear before the Circle Officer in Case no.112 of 2018.

Kali Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief… — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (C) No.34 of 2021

¶3

¶4

Kali Mandal .......... Petitioner.

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi.

¶7

Deputy Commissioner, Giridih.

¶8

Additional Collector, Giridih

¶9

District Land Acquisition Officer, Giridih.

¶10

Circle Officer, Sariya, District Giridih.

¶11

.......... Respondents.

¶12

¶13

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶14

----For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rohan Kashyap, A.C. to S.C. IV -----

¶15

Order No.03 Date: 03.02.2021

¶16

This case is taken up through video conferencing.

¶17

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the notice dated 9^th January, 2018 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) issued by the Circle Officer, Sariya- respondent no.5 purportedly under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 in connection with Case no.112 of 2018, whereby long stand Jamabandi created and running in favour of the ancestor of the petitioner has been sought to be cancelled. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the District Land Acquisition Officer, Giridih- respondent no.4 to pay suitable compensation for acquisition of the land, measuring an area of 1.65 acres being part of different plots under Khata no.1/172, Mauja Sariya Khurd, under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 along with suitable interest.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner claims to be lawful descendant of the original settlees, namely, Shib Charan Sundi and Puran Sundi in whose favour the settlement of the land in question was made on 6^th November, 1943 and 7^th December, 1944, respectively, by way of Hukumnama. According to the petitioner, the said settlees also paid rent to the ex. landlord. After vesting of the land to the State under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, they were recognized as raiyats. The petitioner’s ancestors also paid rent to the State Government and rent receipts

¶19

-2-

¶20

were also issued in their names. Thereafter, legal heirs of recorded tenants have been paying rent to the State Government. Last rent receipt for the land in question was issued in the year 2019-20. In the aforesaid background, the case of the petitioner is that the notice dated 9^th January, 2018 issued by the respondent no.5 with an intention to cancel the long standing Jamabandi created/running in favour of the petitioner’s ancestor is illegal and without jurisdiction.

¶21

Mr. Rohan Kashyap, learned A.C. to S.C.IV, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that since the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 9^th January, 2018 issued by the respondent no.5 and he has ample opportunity to appear before the respondent no.5 to present his case, the writ petition is not maintainable at this stage.

¶22

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 9^th January, 2018 issued by the respondent no.5 purportedly under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 in Case no.112 of 2018 as well as the fact that the petitioner has ample opportunity to present his case before the said authority, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition at this stage and the same is dismissed as not maintainable.

¶23

The petitioner is, however, at liberty to appear before the respondent no.5 in Case no.112 of 2018 and take all available pleas including the issue of jurisdiction of respondent no.5 in initiating the said case.

¶24

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶25

Sanjay/

Kali Mandal v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kali Mandal v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

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

Ms N P Construction Throguh Its Proprietor Shri Pramod Singh Vs Steel Authority of India Ltd. through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Ramji Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary Ranchi

Barun Konar Vs Sameena Jahan

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

Gautam Kumar Nag Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner