Dismissed

Ramdeo Kumhar v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Jharkhand HC3 Mar 2023WPC/446/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the occupation of his land by a school and other State authorities seeking eviction and compensation. Relying on a counter-affidavit regarding a title dispute, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding no mandamus lay against the authorities and directing the petitioner to seek redress in civil jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition for directions to vacate land and pay compensation is dismissed; petitioner is at liberty to approach civil court.

Ramdeo Kumhar Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its… — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No.446 of 2022

¶2

¶3

Ramdeo Kumhar .......... Petitioner.

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, HEC Dhurwa, Ranchi.

¶6

Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad.

¶7

Civil Surgeon, Dhanbad.

¶8

District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad.

¶9

District Education Officer, Dhanbad.

¶10

The Circle officer, Baghmara.

¶11

S. S. High School, Baghmara, through its Principal.

¶12

Samudaik Swasth Kendra, Baghmara, through its Medical Officer. .......... Respondents.

¶13

¶14

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶15

----For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Lala, Advocate For the State : Mr. A. K. Thakur, A.C. to A.A.G.III -----

¶16

Order No.05 Date: 03.03.2023

¶17

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent no.7 to forthwith vacate the petitioner’s land appertaining to part of plot no.30, plot nos.31, 32, 33, 34, 35 & 36, Khata no.01, Thana no.81, measuring total area 1.96 acres (more or less), Mouja Luthipahari, Baghmara Circle, District Dhanbad by removing illegal encroachment/construction made thereon and to direct the State respondents to pay compensation with exemplary interest @ 12% to the petitioner for the period of illegal occupation. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent no.8 to forthwith vacate the petitioner’s land appertaining to plot no.41, Khata no.1, measuring an area of 3 decimals (more or less), Thana no.81, Mouja Luthipahari, Baghmara Circle, District Dhanbad by removing illegal encroachment/construction made thereon and direct the State respondents to pay compensation with exemplary interest @ 12% to the petitioner for the period of illegal occupation. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to provide protection of law allowing him to

¶18

-2-

¶19

exercise his all legal rights over the land in question and the respondent nos.7 and 8 may not be allowed to harass the petitioner and violate his fundamental right.

¶20

Mr. A. K. Thakur, learned A.C. to A.A.G.III appearing on behalf of the respondents refers to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos.4 & 5 (wrongly typed in the counter affidavit as respondent nos.5 & 7) and submits that in the revisional survey, the name of Lalit Kumhar, son of Hira Kumhar has been recorded in the Raiyati Khatiyan and his family members are the rightful owner of the plots under Khata no.1, Thana no.81, measuring an area of 7.41 acres, Mouja Lutipahari, Baghmara Circle, District Dhanbad. However, on 25^th January, 1956, a registered gift deed was executed by said Lalit Kumhar by virtue of which 1.96 acres of lands appertaining plot nos.30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 & 36 were transferred to H. E. School, Baghmara. Since then the said part of the land is in possession of the State authorities.

¶21

On this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the registered gift deed said to have been executed by said Lalit Kumhar on 25^th January, 1956 is a forged document. It is also submitted that the respondents have not stated anything with regard to three decimals of the petitioner’s land on which Community Health Centre, Baghmara has been constructed by the State authorities.

¶22

Be that as it may.

¶23

Considering the stand taken in the counter affidavit that the petitioner’s grandfather, namely, Lalit Kumhar had executed registered gift deed for transferring the part of the land in question to the

¶24

-3-

¶25

concerned school, no writ of mandamus, as has been prayed in the writ petition, can be issued to the respondent authorities.

¶26

The petitioner is, however, at liberty to take appropriate recourse in this regard before the competent court of civil jurisdiction.

¶27

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.

¶28

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶29

Sanjay/

Ramdeo Kumhar v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramdeo Kumhar v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

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

Smt Shail Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Hema Devi Vs Jharkhand Academic Council Ranchi through Its Chairman Namkum Ranchi

Bajrang Kumar Lakra Vs Ranchi Municipal Corporation

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

Commando Industril Security Force through Its Proprietor Nawal Kishore Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Department of Health