Disposed

Mahendra Alias Vikky Kapri Alias Vikky Kewat v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC13 Mar 2023WPC/3207/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an administrative notice directing him to appear regarding disputed land possession. The High Court did not enter merits and granted liberty to file a fresh response with documents, directing the officer to decide within 12 weeks after hearing.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner given liberty to file fresh response with documents; directed to be decided within 12 weeks of hearing.

Mahendra Alias Vikky Kapri Alias Vikky Kewat Vs the State… — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 3207 of 2021

¶3

Mahendra @ Vikky Kapri @ Vikky Kewat ….. Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka

¶7

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumka 4. The Circle Officer, Dumka 5. Smt. Minakhchhi Gorain ….. Respondents -----

¶8

CORAM

¶9

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶10

----For the Petitioner: Mr. D. C. Mishra For the State: Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, A.C to S.C (L&C)-III

¶11

¶12

05/13.03.2023 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing Administrative Notice No. 385 dated 11.06.2021 issued to the petitioner by the respondent No.4 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) whereby in pursuance of direction given by the respondent No.3, the petitioner has been directed to appear before the respondent No.4 along with the original documents of the land appertaining to Khata No. 35/61, Plot No. 1449, measuring an area of 01 Bigha 05 Dhurs, situated at Mouza-Fasiadangal, Dumka town on an application filed by the respondent No.5. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondent to pass appropriate order in accordance with law as the petitioner has already provided copies of the relevant order sheets and necessary documents along with the application before the respondent No.4 on 19.07.2021 which clearly shows that the petitioner/his ancestor has been in peaceful possession of the said land.

¶13

The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said land has been in possession of the petitioner/his ancestors since long. The name of Charu Kewat (the grandfather of the petitioner) finds place in Register-II in respect of the said land. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that one Bibi Wajda Khatoon had filed Mutation Case No. 60/1992-93 for getting the said land mutated in her name which was rejected vide order dated 29.09.1992/21.12.1992 passed by the respondent No.4. The husband of the respondent No.5 along with another person, namely, Md. Nurul Hoda preferred

¶14

Mutation Appeal No. 02/1993-94 against the said order which was also rejected by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dumka vide order dated 01.10.1994. Learned counsel for the petitioner while explaining the history of the said land, submits that the petitioner/his ancestor had been in lawful possession of the said land for several years. Despite the said fact, the impugned notice dated 11.06.2021 has been issued to the petitioner by the respondent No.4 at the instance of the respondent No.5 alleging that the said land was illegally occupied by him. Though pursuant to the impugned notice dated 11.06.2021, the petitioner has submitted all the relevant documents with respect to the said land before the respondent No.4, yet he has not passed any final order on the same.

¶15

Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned A.C to S.C (L&C)-III appearing on behalf of the State-respondents, submits that if the petitioner submits fresh response along with the relevant documents with respect to the land in question before the respondent No.4 pursuant to the impugned notice dated 11.06.2021, an appropriate decision in accordance with law will be taken by the respondent No.4 in this regard.

¶16

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the prayer made in the present writ petition, without entering into the merit of the case, the petitioner is given liberty to file fresh response along with the relevant documents relating to the land in question pursuant to the impugned notice dated 11.06.2021 before the respondent No.4. On receipt of the said response, the respondent No.4 shall take appropriate decision in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondent No.5/their representatives preferably within 12 weeks from the date of filing of the said response and documents by the petitioner.

¶17

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

¶18

(RAJESH SHANKAR, J)

¶19

Satish/-

Mahendra Alias Vikky Kapri Alias Vikky Kewat v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Alias Vikky Kapri Alias Vikky Kewat 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

M/S Rajbir Construction Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Namely Punit Kumar Agarwal Vs the State of Jharkhand through Secretary Deptt of Higher Technical Education and Skill Development

Karan Kumar Ram Vs the Union of India through Directorate General of India Directorates Training

Ramdeo Kumhar Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Ankit Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Neha Kumari Vs State of Jharkhand

Lakhiram Tudu Vs the State of Jharkhand