Dismissed

Aarjahan Sheikh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC15 Mar 2022WPC/3383/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition regarding land possession, the petitioner challenged a directive to vacate land. Counsel argued violations of natural justice in a prior settlement case. The court dismissed the petition, holding that petitioners did not assail the relevant order before the Commissioner and thus could not claim protection.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted as petitioners did not assail the order before the learned Commissioner.

Aarjahan Sheikh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Landlord and Tenant | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

[Civil Writ Jurisdiction]

¶3

W. P. (C) No. 3383 of 2020

¶4

1.Aarjahan Sheikh, S/o Late Najir Sk.

¶5

2.Nabiat Sheikh, S/o Late Habil Sk.

¶6

3.Mojamil Haque, S/o Late Jamshed Sk.

¶7

4.Abbasuddin Sk., S/o Sadhu Sk. @ Hasibul Rahman

¶8

5.Israfil Sk. S/o Sadhu Sk. @ Hasibul Rahman

¶9

. .... .. ... Petitioner(s)

¶10

Versus

¶11

1.The State of Jharkhand.

¶12

2.The Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka

¶13

3.The Deputy Commissioner, Pakur

¶14

4.The Sub Divisional Officer, Pakur

¶15

5.The Circle Officer, Pakur

¶16

.. ... ...Respondent(s)

¶17

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO

¶18

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate. For the Resps./State : Mr. Deepak Kr. Dubey, AC to AAG.II

¶19

05 / 15.03.2022 . Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

¶20

Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners, five in number, namely, 1.Aarjahan Sheikh, S/o Late Najir Sk., 2.Nabiat Sheikh, S/o Late Habil Sk. 3.Mojamil Haque, S/o Late Jamshed Sk. 4.Abbasuddin Sk., S/o Sadhu Sk. @ Hasibul Rahman and 5.Israfil Sk. S/o Sadhu Sk. @ Hasibul Rahman have preferred the instant Writ Petition for quashing memo no.605 dated 20.08.2019 (Annexure-6) issued by respondent no.5, whereby the Circle Officer has directed the petitioner(s) to vacate the land, in question Situated in Mouza- Kanpur in Khanpur, Maheshpur, Thana No.262, Dag No.737, Area-08 Biggha, 15 Katha 09 Dhur.

¶21

Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that one Kiriti Rabidas, a Peon posted at Circle Officer, Maheshpur manufactured some fabricated documents and by fraudulent manner filed Settlement Case No.112 of 1997-98 before Sub Divisional Officer, Pakur for settlement of said Tank known as Bakchora Pokhar, on the basis of settlement from Ex-landlord in 1943 in B.S. 1350 and even after knowing about pendency of proceeding in between petitioners and Kiriti Rabidas under Section 144 Cr.P.C., the respondents cancelled the long running Jambandi of Jabed Ali without issuing notices to petitioner(s) in utter violation of Principles of natural justice and passed an order on 24.08.2002 for fixation of rent in favour of Kiriti Rabidas in Settlement Case No.112 of 1997-98.

¶22

Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the said order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Pakur, has been assailed

¶23

-2-

¶24

before the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur vide R.M.A. Case No.23/2003 which was also dismissed in terms of order dated 22.03.2006 holding that it is a Government tank and the Circle Officer, Maheshpur, has been directed to take possession of the same.

¶25

Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that said order of the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur has been assailed before the Revenue Authority i.e. learned Commissioner in Revision Misc. Appeal No.05/200607, which has been admitted in terms of the order dated 10.10.2006 and the LCR has been called for.

¶26

Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that these petitioners are performa respondents before the learned Commissioner in Rev. Misc. Appeal No.5/2006-07 and in the meantime, Circle Officer has issued notice as contained in memo no.605 dated 20.08.2019 (Annexure-6) and pursuant thereto, the petitioner no.1 has filed an application before the Circle Officer, Maheshpur to stop the proceeding till the disposal of the revision before the learned Commissioner.

¶27

Mr. Deepak Kr. Dubey, learned AC to AAG.II for the State has opposed the same and submitted that these petitioners are never petitioners before the learned Commissioner, in Rev. Misc. Appeal No.5/2006-07, as such, they cannot seek protection under law without obtaining any stay from the court of learned Commissioner, as the said Rev. Misc. Appeal No.5/2006-07 has been filed by one Sadhu Seikh, S/o Lokman Seikh who is not the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court, as such, this Court may not grant any relief to the petitioners.

¶28

Considering the rival submissions of the parties and looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, since the petitioners have not assailed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur before the learned Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, as such, no relief can be granted to the petitioners.

¶29

Accordingly, the instant Writ Petition stands dismissed.

¶30

Pending I.A., if any, stands closed.

¶31

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

¶32

Sandeep/

Aarjahan Sheikh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aarjahan Sheikh 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

Birju Gope Vs State of Jharkhand

Pankaj Prasad Tiwari Vs Branch Manager Andhra Bank

Mathur Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ursuline Convent School through Its Principal Sister Jayanti Kerketta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Haradhan Mahato Vs Maga Prasad Mahato And Ors.

Somra Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand