Disposed

Kushal Munda v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC25 Jan 2021WPC/3553/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging a general notice issued by Birla Institute of Technology regarding land demarcation was disposed of with liberty to raise objections.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to prefer objections before the Circle Officer by 10th February 2021 with status quo maintained pending decision.

What the court decided

Kushal Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No.3553 of 2020 With

¶2

I.A. No.6402 of 2020

¶3

¶4

Kushal Munda

¶5

Arjun Munda

¶6

Mahesh Munda

¶7

Mahesh Munda

¶8

Bishwanath Munda

¶9

Vishal Munda

¶10

Suraj Munda

¶11

Suraj Munda

¶12

Indra Nath Mahto

¶13

Babulal Mahto

¶14

Jhubri Devi 12. Manesh Mahto 13. Bodhnath Mahto 14. Narayan Keshri .......... Petitioners. -Versus-

¶15

The State of Jharkhand

¶16

The Secretary, Department of Land and Revenue, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi.

¶17

The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi.

¶18

The S.D.O., Ranchi.

¶19

The Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi. 6. The Circle Officer, Kanke, Ranchi. 7. The Officer-in-charge, Sadar, Ranchi.

¶20

State of Bihar, through the Secretary, Land Acquisition Officer, Hindi Bhawan, Fraser Road, Old Jakkanpur, Lodipur, Patna.

¶21

The Vice Chancellor, Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra, Ranchi. .......... Respondents.

¶22

CORAM : HON’BLE MR	----- . JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR -----
For the Petitioners :	Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate
For Respondent nos.1 to For Respondent no.8:	7:Mr. Manoj Kumar, G.A.III Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Advocate
For Respondent no.9:	Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate -----
Order No.03	Date: 25.01.2021

¶23

This case is taken up through video conferencing.

¶24

A copy of the writ petition has already been served to Mr. Sirjit Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondent no.9. Hence, the defect no.2, as pointed out by the office, is ignored.

¶25

Since the petitioners have the common interest in putting challenge to the general notice issued by the Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra, Ranchi (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), I am of the view that they are required to pay only one set of Court fee. Hence, the defect no.1, as pointed out by the office is also ignored.

¶26

-2-

¶27

At the request of learned counsel for the petitioners, defect no.3, as pointed out by the office, is also ignored.

¶28

The present writ petition has been filed for staying the general notice issued under the signature of Deputy Registrar, Land Records, Birla Institute of Technology (BIT), Mesra, Ranchi (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), whereby it has been claimed that the different land of village Rudiya, Thana No.168; Village Mesra, Thana No.169; and Village Hombai, Thana No.167 are owned by BIT, Mesra over which the steps for land demarcation as well as for raising boundary wall is being done. It has further been mentioned in the said general notice that if any person has objection to the same, he/she may approach the Circle Office, Kanke and if any obstruction is made in land demarcation process as well as raising of the boundary wall, an appropriate legal action will be taken against such person.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that some of the petitioners belong to tribal community and some of them belong to other backward classes, who are heirs of recorded tenants of the land situated at Mouja Mesra, Thana no.169, District Ranchi and at present they are the cultivating raiyats of the aforesaid land. They have been in possession of the same for last several decades. It is highly arbitrary on the part of the BIT, Mesra in issuing the impugned general notice. According to the petitioners, no notice in any acquisition proceeding had ever been served to any raiyat of the land in question and as such the same can be said to have been acquired on the basis of illegal acquisition proceeding, if at all done.

¶30

Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned G.A. III, appearing on behalf of the State respondents as well as Mr. Srijit Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondent no.9 jointly submit that it has already been mentioned in the impugned general notice that if any person has objection towards the demarcation of the land in question and raising of boundary wall over the same, he/she may approach the office of Circle Officer, Kanke (the respondent no.6).

¶31

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view that the claim made by the petitioners in the present writ petition is factual in nature, which is to be verified at an appropriate level, without entering into the merit of the case, the petitioners are given liberty to prefer their respective objections before the respondent no.6 along

¶32

-3-

¶33

with supporting documents by 10^th February, 2021. On receipt of the said objection(s), the respondent no.6 after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the representative of the respondent no.9, shall take appropriate informed decision on the said objection(s) of the petitioners as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of such objection(s). 9. Till the said decision is taken by the respondent no.9, the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to the land in question.

¶34

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

¶35

I.A. No.6402 of 2020 is also disposed of accordingly.

¶36

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶37

Sanjay/

Kushal Munda v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Kushal Munda 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

Ms Jsr Enterprises through Its Proprietor Balendu Shekhar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chhota Das Alias Ajit Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Butung Tanti Alias Botom Tanti Alias Atmaram Tanti Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bisheshwar Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chhabi Lal Besra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Amit Kumar Mit Vs the State of Jharkhand