Manuwar Hussain Vs the State of Jharkhand

----For the Petitioner: Mr. L. C. N. Shahdeo For the State: Mr. Binit Chandra, A.C to A.A.G-III For O.P.No.4: Mr. Ranjan Pd. Sinha For O.P.No.5: Mr. J. N. Upadhyay

¶12

¶13

12/24.01.2024 The present contempt application has been filed against the opposite parties alleging wilful disobedience and non-compliance of the order dated 22.01.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5153/2015.

¶14

Mr. Ranjan Pd. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.4, refers to the show cause affidavit dated 13.10.2023 filed on behalf of the said opposite party, relevant paragraphs of which read as under:

¶15

‘’8. That, in pursuant to letter No. 304 dated 18.02.2021, the Circle Officer, Mango has submitted report to Deputy Collector Land Reforms vide letter No. 707 dated 07.06.2021. After hearing both the parties and report dated 07.06.2021, the Executive Officer, Mango Municipal Corporation has passed order contained in memo No. 1209 dated 17.07.2021.

¶16

That, it is humbly stated and submitted that in view of memo No. 1209, the Executive Officer, Mango Municipal Corporation has issued letter to writ petitioner to remove encroachment within 3 days otherwise office will remove encroachment and all expenses will be recovered from him vide letter No. 1084 dated 02.05.2022.

¶17

That, the private respondent No.5 (Abdul Aziz) has moved before this Hon’ble Court being W.P.(C) No. 2381/2022 for issuance of an appropriate writ/ writs/order/orders/direction/directions for quashing of notice dated 02.05.2022 contained in memo No. 1084 issued by the respondent No.4-Executive Officer, Mango Municipal Corporation, Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to

¶18

remove the alleged encroachment upon 8 ft. lane or else by coercive action, the alleged encroachment should be demolished.

¶19

Further issuance of an appropriate writ/ writs/order/orders/direction directing the concerned respondent to conduct proper measurement to come to conclusive finding about the alleged encroachment.

¶20

Further issuance of an appropriate writ/ writs/order/orders/directions for appointment of pleader commissioner.

¶21

During pendency of the writ petition, any further proceeding pursuant to notice dated 02.05.2022 as contained in memo No. 1084 may kindly be ordered to be stayed.

¶22

That, it is humbly stated and submitted that during pendency of this writ application, the Circle Officer, Mango vide letter No. 538 dated 20.05.2022 submitted a demarcation report along with Panchnama and map to the answering respondent stating that Plot Nos. 1178 and 1179 are adjacent to each other between which there is no mention of any lane in the current survey map. In view of report of Circle Officer, the Executive Officer has issued letter No. 1229 dated 21.05.2022 and the said writ application W.P.(C) No. 2381/2022 disposed of vide order dated 06.06.2022.

¶23

That, it is humbly stated and submitted that I.A petitioner/intervener (now the contempt petitioner) has also participated in demarcation process and agreed with demarcation of land. Thereafter, the petitioner and private respondent have put their signatures on Panchnama, but the said facts have not been disclosed before this Hon’ble Court in instant matter/case.’’

¶24

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the

¶25

aforesaid statements made in the said show cause affidavit, this Court is of the view that no case of contempt is made out against the opposite parties.

¶26

The present contempt application is accordingly dismissed.

¶27

(RAJESH SHANKAR, J)

¶28

Satish/-

Manuwar Hussain v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manuwar Hussain v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bandhan Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nand Lal Harijan Vs M/S Bharat Coking Coal Limited Represented through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Laliteshwar Prasad Singh Vs Sri Kamal Kishore Soren the Principal Secretary Health Medical Education and Family Welfare Deptt

Bablu Kumbhakar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shiveshwar Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand Thr the Principal Secretary Deptt of Higher Technical Education and Skill

Mukul Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand