Remanded

Binod Kumar Gope v. the State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC18 Mar 2021WPC/4327/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to restrain the RMC from constructing a drain over his property. Due to disputed facts regarding land ownership and a prior measurement failure, the Court remanded the matter for a fresh measurement in the petitioner's presence.

What did the court decide?

Remanded the matter before the Commissioner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation to get the land measured in the presence of the petitioner and complete the exercise within eight weeks.

Binod Kumar Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand And Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No.4327 of 2013

¶3

Binod Kumar Gope, S/o Late Cheddi Gope, R/o Karamtoli (Ahir Toli), P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, District-Ranchi.

¶4

… … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand.

¶7

Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi.

¶8

Chief Executive Officer, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S. Ranch, Dist.-Ranchi.

¶9

Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S. Ranchi, Dist.-Ranchi.

¶10

Executive Engineer, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S. Ranchi, Dist.-Ranchi.

¶11

…… Respondents

¶12

¶13

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶14

¶15

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kushal Kumar, Advocate For the Res.Nos.1&2 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shahi, Advocate For the Res.-RMC : Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, Advocate ----------------------------

¶16

13 / Dated 18^th March, 2021

¶17

The matter has been heard through video conferencing.

¶18

This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder a direction has been sought for to restrain the respondent-RMC from constructing the drain over the petitioner’s property.

¶19

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during pendency of the writ petition, drain has been constructed but it is over the land of the petitioner.

¶20

It has further been submitted by referring to the affidavit filed by the RMC that actually the drain has been constructed on the flank of the road which does not belong to the petitioner but the grievance of the petitioner is that the flank where the drain has been said to be constructed is the land which belongs to the petitioner and in pursuance

¶21

to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.1665 of 2002 disposed of on 12.03.2002 the measurement which has been directed to be done of the land in question was actually not in presence of the petitioner, therefore, whatever construction of the drain has been done which is said to be made on the flank of the road, is actually over the land of the petitioner.

¶22

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties on earlier occasion and directed the learned counsel for the RMC to establish the fact as to whether the measurement basis upon which it has been stated by the RMC that the land where the drain has been constructed does not belong to the petitioner and in reply, submission has been made that the measurement was done but there is no record to establish the fact that the measurement was done in presence of the petitioner. However, it has been submitted that the drain has been constructed on the flank of the road and not over the land of the petitioner.

¶23

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and appreciated their rival submissions. The fact about the construction of drain over the land is in dispute since on the one hand the petitioner is claiming that the land where the drain has been constructed belongs to him and on the other hand, RMC is claiming that the land where the drain has been constructed is on the flank of the road, therefore, this Court, in such a disputed question of fact, cannot issue any mandamus sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶24

However, in order to resolve the dispute and considering the fact that it is the admitted fact of the RMC that the measurement of the land conducted by the concerned authority of the RMC in pursuance to the order passed in W.P.(C) No.1665 of 2002 was not in presence of the petitioner or his representative, therefore, this Court, deems it fit and proper to remand the matter before the Commissioner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation to look into the matter and take a fresh decision in accordance with law.

¶25

Needless to say that before taking a fresh decision, the Commissioner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation is to get the land

¶26

measured by the competent authority of the RMC in presence of the petitioner. It is further directed to complete the exercise within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶27

The petitioner is directed to co-operate with the measurement as also to produce the documents pertaining to his title over the land in order to reach to the rightful conclusion by the competent authority of the RMC so that the dispute which is the subject matter of the writ petition be resolved.

¶28

Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.

¶29

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶30

Saurabh

Binod Kumar Gope v. the State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binod Kumar Gope 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

Ramdhani Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary

Inter Silli College through Its Lecturer Harish Chandra Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Alok Kedia Vs Transport

Paras Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Dilip Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Bose Power Limited through Its Director Namely Dibyendu Bose Vs Jharkhand Renewable Energy Development Agency and Ors.