Dismissed

Suresh Kr Mehta And Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief Secretary And Ors.

Jharkhand HC14 Feb 2023WPC/445/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a writ petition seeking mandatory directions to stop interference with petitioner's possession of leased premises. The Court held that serious disputed questions of fact regarding the lease agreement necessitated a civil suit rather than writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Courts dismissed the petition for relief on limitations of writ jurisdiction due to disputed facts. Right of remedy reserved to appropriate civil court.

Suresh Kr Mehta And Anr. Vs The State Of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (C) No. 445 of 2016

¶3

1.Suresh Kr. Mehta son of Late V.P. Mehta resident of 156, Dhalbhum Road, P.O. and P.S.-Sakchi, Dist.-East Singhbhum 2. Shilpa Mehta, wife of Suresh Kr. Mehta resident of 156, Dhalbhum, Road, P.O. and P.S.-Sakchi, Dist.-East Singhbhum

¶4

… … Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi

¶7

Alok Kumar, Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur having its office at P.O. and P.S.-Bistupur, Dist.-East Singhbhum

¶8

D.K. Pandey, Senior Inspector, Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee, having its office at P.O. and P.S. Sakchi, Dist.-East Singhbhum

¶9

Anjani Kumar Tiwari, Officer-in-charge, Sakchi Police Station, having its office at P.O. and P.S. Sakchi, Dist. East Singhbhum

¶10

Renu Bala Das wife of Late Mahesh Narayan Das

¶11

Kaushal Kumar Karn son of Late Mahesh Narayan Das

¶12

Rup Lata Verma daughter of Late Mahesh Narayan Das All resident of Bindu Mahal, 25, Khas Mahal, Parsudih, P.O. and P.S. Parsudih, Dist.-East Singhbhum

¶13

… … Respondents

¶14

¶15

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶16

¶17

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sushant Kumar, Advocate For the Resp. 5 : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate For the Resp. 2-4 : Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, Advocate For the Resp. 6-7 : Mr. Samir Kumar Lall, Advocate ---

¶18

09 /14.02.2023 Learned counsel for the parties are present.

¶19

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

¶20

“For issuance of direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent authorities not to interfere with peaceful possession of petitioner’s premises as the petitioners are having lawful possession of the premises situated at Sakchi, Jamshedpur and the same has been leased out by the respondent No. 5 to 7 for a period of 10 years but the lessors have played foul with the petitioners and have illegally sold the premises leased out to a third party through a registered sale deed without cancelation/revocation of the lease agreement so entered by and between the petitioners and the respondent No. 5 to 7.

¶21

To hold and declare that the respondents specifically respondent No. 2 has acted beyond jurisdiction and the respondent No. 2 has got no authority to interfere with peaceful possession of the petitioner, further the same has got no judicial power as such to interfere.

¶22

¶23

During the pendency of the writ application the proceedings i.e. the interference by the respondent authorities may be kept at abeyance/stayed.”

¶24

3. Learned counsel for the respondents at the outset has submitted that as per the counter affidavit, legality, validity and enforceability of the unregistered lease agreement which has been relied upon by the petitioners has been challenged, no relief as prayed for by the petitioners can be granted by this court. It is further submitted that there are seriously disputed questions of facts involved in the present case which cannot be adjudicated through writ jurisdiction. It has also been submitted that admittedly the private respondent No. 5,6 and 7 have expired, but no petition for substitution has been filed.

¶25

4. Upon this, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in case this court is not inclined to proceed any further in the present writ proceedings, liberty may be reserved with the petitioners to have his remedy through appropriate court of civil jurisdiction.

¶26

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this court finds that there are disputed questions of facts involved in the present case regarding legality, validity and enforceability of the unregistered lease agreement which has been heavily relied upon by the petitioners. Accordingly, no relief as prayed for by the petitioners can be granted under writ jurisdiction. However, the right of the petitioners is reserved to get their grievance redressed in accordance with law.

¶27

6. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.

¶28

7. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶29

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶30

Binit

Suresh Kr Mehta And Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief Secretary And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kr Mehta And Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief Secretary And Ors.

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

Adarsh Sawawlambhi Sahkari Grih Nirman Samity Limited through Secretary Sri Y N Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Registrar Co. Operative Societies and Anr.

Arun Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Ms Sitaram Engineering Through Its Proprietor Sitaram Lohar Vs Authorised Officer Uco Bank

Surendra Prasad Vs Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Jay Prakash Harlalka Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Yusuf Mazhar Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors.