Dismissed

Kamta Prasad Choudhary v. Municipality

Jharkhand HC10 Feb 2023WPC/5675/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed an application to condone delay for substituting the original petitioner and allowed the petition for substitution of legal heirs. Dismissed the principal writ petition finding no illegality in the impugned order as respondents followed prior court directions.

What did the court decide?

The substitution petition was allowed; the writ petition was disposed of without interference as no illegality was found in the impugned order.

Kamta Prasad Choudhary Vs Municipality — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W. P. (C) No. 5675 of 2012

¶4

Kamta Prasad Choudhary, Son of Late Ram Sharan Choudhary, Resident of Staff Bank Colony, Piska More, Ratu Road, P.O. Hehal, Village Hesal, District Ranchi

¶5

(Deleted vide order dated 10.02.2023)

¶6

1. Upendra Choudhary

¶7

2. Purushottam Choudhary

¶8

3. Sudesh Choudhary All S/o late Kamta Prasad Choudhary, Resident of Staff Bank Colony, Piska More, Ratu Road, P.O. Hehal, District Ranchi (Substituted vide order dated 10.02.2023)

¶9

… … Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

The Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi

¶12

The Chief Executive Officer, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi

¶13

The Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi

¶14

… … Respondents

¶15

¶16

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶17

¶18

14/10.02.2023

¶19

1. Learned counsel for the parties are present.

¶20

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

¶21

“for issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) commanding upon the respondents for the following relief(s): -

¶22

(i) For, the issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 22.06.2012, whereby it has been ordered by the respondent no. 2 to set aside the settlement of 275 s q. ft. of the land done in favor of the petitioner way back in the year 1996 as because the petitioner is an ExArmy Man.

¶23

(ii) For, the direction upon the respondents not to settled the land to one Ravindra Prasad Choudhary, brother of the petitioner in the light of the Title Suit filed by the Ravindra Prasad Choudhary which was considered by the respondents especially respondent no. 3 while passing order of settlement of the 275 sq. ft. of the land although the same Title Suit was dropped after filing of the written statement by the petitioner.

¶24

(iii) For, the direction upon the respondents to set aside the application of the petitioner filed on 21.12.2011, wherein he has given the entire facts relating to the settlement of the land in question of M/s Plot No. 1862, Ward No. V.

¶25

(iv) For, the direction upon the respondents to look into the order passed by the Learned Court of Munsif in

¶26

¶27

Miscellaneous Case No. 19/99 disposed of on dated 18.09.2007, wherein and whereby the Ex-party order passed in Title Suit No. 169/91 has been set aside and the allotment of 275 sq. ft. of the land in favour of Ravindra Prasad Chaudhary, brother of the petitioner has been set aside.

¶28

(v) For, the stay of the order dated 22.06.2012 passed by the respondent no. 2.

¶29

(vi) For any other relief or relief(s) as prayed Your Lordships may be deem, fit and proper in the light of the facts and circumstances of this case.”

¶30

I.A. No.1413 of 2023

¶31

3. This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the substitution petition.

¶32

4. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the prayer made.

¶33

5. After going through the petition for condonation of delay, this Court is satisfied with the cause shown for delay in filing the substitution petition. Delay condoned. I.A. No.1413 of 2023 is also allowed.

¶34

I.A. No.1414 of 2023

¶35

6. It is submitted that the sole petitioner has expired and petition for substitution has been filed.

¶36

7. The Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of the proposed legal heirs and successors of the petitioner along with the interlocutory application. The details of the legal heirs of the petitioner have been mentioned in para 4 of the interlocutory application.

¶37

8. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the prayer made.

¶38

9. After going through the interlocutory application and being satisfied, I.A. No.1414 of 2023 is hereby allowed.

¶39

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to delete the name of the original petitioner and incorporate the name of the legal heirs of the petitioner, whose details have been mentioned in para 4 of the interlocutory application in the cause title.

¶40

¶41

W. P. (C) No. 5675 of 2012

¶42

11. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this case has been taken up on merits.

¶43

12. Learned counsel for the respondent-Ranchi Municipal Corporation has submitted that the impugned order does not affect the original petitioner/ present petitioners in any manner in view of the fact that by the impugned order, the authority has followed the directions issued by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 2463/2008 and what has been sought to be disturbed is only the portion over and above the allotment made to the original petitioner. The learned counsel has also submitted that two brothers have been fighting for possession of the land and the other brother has not even been made a party in the present proceedings.

¶44

13. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as on date, the original petitioner has already expired and he will be satisfied, if the submissions of the respondents is recorded and the case is disposed of.

¶45

14. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-Ranchi Municipal Corporation based on the impugned order, this Court finds that the respondents have not disturbed the original petitioner and have followed the direction passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 2463/2008 and has clearly mentioned that apart from the allotted land pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 2463/2008, the other portions of the land if found in possession of the petitioner and his brother is to be taken back.

¶46

15. After going through the impugned order, this Court finds no illegality in the impugned order and accordingly, no interference is called for.

¶47

16. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶48

17. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶49

18. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

¶50

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶51

Mukul

Kamta Prasad Choudhary v. Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamta Prasad Choudhary v. Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Kuber Tmt Plant Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Others

Sanjay Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Ganesh Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand And

State of Jharkhand And Ors. Vs Sri Dinesh Prasad

M/S Bharat Coking Coal Limited Vs Prem Kumar

Akshay Kumar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand