Dismissed

Krishna Kumar Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC8 Nov 2023WPC/326/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner requested issuance of Land Ownership Certificate for 13.2 decimals of land. The High Court found disputed factual questions regarding ownership and leasehold status, holding this a poor fit for writ jurisdiction. Petitioner directed to approach Civil Court for title claim; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach the Civil Court for claim of right, title and interest over the property; writ petition disposed of.

Krishna Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W. P. (C) No. 326 of 2020

¶3

¶4

Krishna Kumar Yadav … …. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum

¶8

Circle Officer, Sakchi, East Singhbhum

¶9

… …. Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶12

----For the Petitioner : Mr. Arbind Kumar, Advocate For the State : Ms. Rishi Bharti, AC to AAG-III -----

¶13

Oral Order

¶14

10 / Dated : 08.11.2023

¶15

The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the Letter No. 2172 dated 20.08.2019 issued by the Circle Officer, Sakchi, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum whereby and where under, the application for issuance of Land Ownership Certificate has been refused with respect to 13.2 decimals of land situated at Mouza Sakchi, Thana No. 1153, Khata No. 122, Plot Nos. 2655 and 2656.

¶16

The application has been rejected on the ground that as per the report of the Revenue Clerk, said plot was recorded in 1932–34 Khatiyan in the name of the tenant Sahdeo Koiri. On 01.08.1985 said land was part of Tata Steel as lease deed as recorded in Schedule-IV. The concerned page of Register-II was torn away but in the online record, the land in question has been shown to have been entered in the name of Girija Devi, who is mother of the petitioner. As per the recent survey, the land in question was recorded with a constructed house under Anabad Bihar Sarkar and in the remark column, Tisco Indian Cable Company was recorded showing illegal possession of Girija Devi.

¶17

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the land in question was purchased by the mother of the petitioner through registered sale deed on 31.10.1972 and thereafter it was duly mutated in Mutation Case No. 72/ 1973-74 dated 10.10.1973 and he has been paying rent since then and was in settled possession of the land. Earlier W.P. (C) No. 2500 of 2019 was filed for issuance of Land Ownership Certificate in which the petitioner was directed to submit a representation which has been rejected on the ground that the relevant page of Register-II has been torn.

¶18

Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the answering respondents nos. 1 to

¶19

3 wherein a definite stand has been taken that as per the record, said plot was a part of the lease hold area of Tata Steel which has been stated in para 14 that the said land has been leased by Govt. of Jharkhand to Tata Steel Limited vide Lease Deed No. 5361 dated 20.08.2005 for a period of 30 years commencing from 01.01.1996 to 31.12.2025.

¶20

From the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, disputed questions of fact emerge regarding the ownership of land. As per the specific stand of the answering respondent authority, the land in question was lease hold land and was leased out to Tata Steel for 30 year commencing from 01.01.1996 to 31.12.2025. The possession of the mother of the petitioner has been shown to be illegal in the remark column of the recent survey Khatiyan.

¶21

Under the circumstance, this is not a fit case for exercising extra writ jurisdiction for issuance of Land Ownership Certificate.

¶22

However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Civil Court for his claim of right, title and interest over the said property.

¶23

Writ petition stands disposed of.

¶24

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶25

AKT/Satendra

¶26

Uploaded

Krishna Kumar Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Kumar Yadav 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aadhar Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Rajnish Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

The Tisco Friends Cooperative Credit Society Limited Through Its Chairman Abdul Razzaque Khan Vs Co. Operative

Saroj Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Justice Anil Kumar Sinha Vs Eastern Railways through Its Chief Administrative Officer

Abinash Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjay Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand