Disposed¶103

Sheo Suman Saurav Singh And Ors. v. State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC25 Jun 2024WPC/7459/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Khas Mahal Officer Hazaribagh; encroachment; press release dated 01.12.2017; direction to vacate land; removal of construction; fresh lease settlement; Government Resolution No.7/Kha Ma (Vivid)-313/14/239/Ra dated 29.03.2016; Clause 4(ii); 10% surcharge; representation pending; liberty to file fresh representation; reasoned and speaking order; eight weeks; writ petitions disposed of; W.P. (C) Nos. 6186, 7235, 7292, 7459 of 2017; State of Jharkhand; Deputy Commissioner Hazaribagh.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh representation for issue of fresh lease of the lands in terms of resolution No.7/Kha Ma (Vivid)-313/14/239/Ra dated 29.03.2016; respondent no.3 directed to consider such representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks of its submission. ¶103

Sheo Suman Saurav Singh And Ors. Vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors. — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶103

Issue for consideration

Whether the press release dated 01.12.2017 published in the newspaper, whereby respondent no.3 directed the petitioners to vacate the land allegedly encroached by them, ought to be set aside (original prayer, later abandoned). +1 more

¶84-87

Ratio / Principle

All the writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh representation for issue of fresh lease of the lands in terms of the resolution No.7/Kha Ma (Vivid)-313/14/239/Ra dated 29.03.2016.

¶99

Key takeaways

In case such a representation is submitted to respondent no.3, the respondent no.3 is directed to consider the same and pass a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks from the date of submission of such representations by the petitioners.ratio¶102

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.), by order dated 25 June 2024, disposed of W.P. (C) No. 7235 of 2017 with analogous writ petitions (W.P. (C) Nos. 6186, 7292 and 7459 of 2017). The petitioners had prayed for setting aside a press release dated 01.12.2017 published in the newspaper, whereby respondent no.3, the Khas Mahal Officer, Hazaribagh, directed them to vacate land allegedly encroached by them; representations of some petitioners for fresh lease settlements were pending undisposed before respondent no.3. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners abandoned the original prayer and sought liberty to file fresh representations for issue of fresh lease in terms of Government Resolution No.7/Kha Ma (Vivid)-313/14/239/Ra dated 29.03.2016 (Clause 4(ii) whereof, as pointed out by counsel, contemplates cancellation of the earlier lease settlement and a fresh settlement with the person in possession on a 10% surcharge where leased land is used by a second person). Learned counsel for respondent no.3 had no serious objection. The Court disposed of the writ petitions granting such liberty and directing respondent no.3 to consider any such representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks from the date of its submission.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 7235 of 2017

¶2

Shashi Kanth Ojha, son of Sri Krdar Nath Ojha, behind United Bank, Ward No.3, resident of Village Okni, P.O.-Hazaribagh, P.S.Sadar, Dist-Hazaribagh, Jharkhand

¶3

.... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Jharkhand

¶6

Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. & Dist.Hazaribagh

¶7

Khas Mahal Officer, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. & Dist.-Hazaribagh

¶8

…. Respondents

¶9

With

¶10

W.P. (C) No. 6186 of 2017

¶11

Kuldeep Rana, son of Jivan Lal Rana

¶12

Arjun Rana, son of Ramdeo Rana

¶13

Ashutosh Pandey, son of Radhey Pandey

¶14

Vibha Choudhary wife of Uday Kant Choudhary

¶15

Kalo Devi wife of Kedar Mehta

¶16

Premlal Ram son of Udhi Baitha

¶17

Nitu Kumari wife of Sanjeev Kumar Sinha

¶18

Lakhan Prasad son of Ram Chandra Mahto

¶19

Pradeep Kumar Mehta @ Pradeep Pd. Mehta, son of Harihar Prasad Mahto

¶20

Arjun Kumar Verma son of Dhanu Mahto

¶21

Santosh Kumar @ Muna Kuswaha son of Budhan Mahto

¶22

Shashi Mehta, son of Rajkumar Mahto

¶23

Bhuneshwar Mehta son of Ganduri Mahto

¶24

Rajendra Kuswaha son of Deo Narayan Mehta

¶25

Nawal Kishore Singh son of Sadhu Singh

¶26

Santosh Kumar Gupta son of Girdhari Sao

¶27

W.P. (C) No.7235 of 2017 with analogous cases

¶28

¶29

Hulash Prasad Kuswaha son of Raghunath Mahto 18. Anil Mehta son of Saryu Mahto 19. Ganesh Kumar Mehta son of Obinath Mahto All are residents of Village-Nura, P.O. & P.S. & Dist.Hazaribagh, Jharkhand .... Petitioners

¶30

Versus

¶31

State of Jharkhand

¶32

Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. & Dist.Hazaribagh

¶33

Khas Mahal Officer, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. & Dist.-Hazaribagh …. Respondents

¶34

With

¶35

W.P. (C) No. 7292 of 2017

¶36

Anil Kumar Mehta, son of Ram Prakash Mehta

¶37

Dayanand Mehta, son of Fagu Mahto

¶38

Horil Prasad Singh, son of Rami Prasad Singh

¶39

Laleshwar Yadav son of Kali Mahto

¶40

Gayatri Devi, wife of Rameshwar Mahto

¶41

Putul Devi, wife of late Ashok Pd. Keshri

¶42

Basanti Rama, wife of Krishna Rana

¶43

Chotan Rana, son of late Barhar Rana

¶44

Sabana Parween, wife of Md. Meesar

¶45

Basanti Devi, wife of Ashok Kumar Mehta

¶46

Birju Mehta, son of late Chedi Mahto

¶47

Hulash Pd. Mehta, son of late Sewa Mahto

¶48

Awadh Kr. Bharti, son of late Brij Kishore Mehta

¶49

Rameshwar Mahto, son of late Manu Mahto

¶50

Baleshwar Pd. Mehta, son of late Gulab Mahto

¶51

Sangeeta Devi, wife of Shankar Prasad

¶52

Alka Devi, wife of Rajesh Prasad Chourisiya

¶53

W.P. (C) No.7235 of 2017 with analogous cases

¶54

¶55

Sahin, wife of Md. Jamiruddin 19. Sahida Khatoon, wife of Jamaluddin 20. Gandori Mahto, son of late Pati Mahto 21. Jamni Devi, wife of Keshar Soni 22. Krishna Kumar Verma, son of Mahabir Mahto 23. Surendra Prasad Mahto, son of Gulab Mahto 24. Bholi Devi, wife of late Nageshwar Pd. Mehta 25. Raukmani Devi, wife of Bangali Yadav 26. Mahadev Yadav, son of Titu Yadav 27. Tilak Gope, son of late Bhola Gope 28. Chinta Devi, wife of Shankar Prasad Chourisia 29. Jayantin Devi, wife of Mahesh Prasad 30. Jai Prakash Pandey, son of late Brij Lal Pandey 31. Sita Devi, wife of Ram Bilash Ram 32. Urmila Devi, wife of Laxman Mahto 33. Rajdev Ram Dangi, son of Ganpati Mahto All are residents of Village-Noora, P.O.- Noora, P.S.-Sadar, Dist.Hazaribagh (Jharkhand) .... Petitioners

¶56

Versus

¶57

State of Jharkhand

¶58

The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. & Dist.Hazaribagh

¶59

Khas Mahal Officer, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. & Dist.-Hazaribagh …. Respondents

¶60

With

¶61

W.P. (C) No. 7459 of 2017

¶62

Sheo Suman Saurav Singh, son of late Raj Kumar Singh

¶63

Awadesh Kumar Singh

¶64

Devanti Devi, wife of late Raj Kumar Singh

¶65

Usha Devi, wife of Dhirendra Bhagat

¶66

W.P. (C) No.7235 of 2017 with analogous cases

¶67

¶68

Ajay Kumar Shaw, son of Dhaneshwar Shaw

¶69

Purnima Devi, wife of late Arjun Ram

¶70

Sarita Devi, wife of Ajay Kumar Saw

¶71

Dhandeshwar Saw, son of late Bikhan Saw

¶72

Bijay Kumar Singh, son of late Mulidi Singh All are residents of Village-Okni, P.O.- Hazaribag, P.S.-Sadar & Dist.-Hazaribagh, Jharkhand

¶73

.... Petitioners

¶74

Versus

¶75

State of Jharkhand

¶76

Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. & Dist.Hazaribagh

¶77

Khas Mahal Officer, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. & Dist.-Hazaribagh

¶78

…. Respondents

¶79

P R E S E N T

¶80

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶81

For the Petitioners : Ms. Chandana Kumari, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Praveen Akhauri, SC Mines I : Mr. Sharabhil Ahmed, AC to SC Mines I : Mr. A.K. Geasen, AC to AAG IA : Mr. Anup Kr. Agrawal, AC to GA IV

¶82

By the Court:-

¶83

Heard the parties.

¶84

The Writ Petition Nos. 7235 of 2017, 7292 of 2017 and 7459

¶85

of 2017 have been filed with a prayer to set aside the press release

¶86

dated 01.12.2017 published in the newspaper whereby and where

¶87

under, the respondent no.3 directed the petitioners to vacate the land allegedly encroached by them.

¶88

W.P. (C) No.7235 of 2017 with analogous cases

¶89

¶90

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners drawing attention of this Court to Clause 4 (ii) of the Government Resolution No.7/Kha Ma (Vivid)-313/14/239/Ra dated 29.03.2016 that as per the same, in case a lessee is not using the leased land for its own use and it is proved that the leased land is utilized by any second person or any structure has been constructed thereon then after hearing the version of the lessee within a maximum period of 90 days and in case of being not satisfied, lease settlement of the earlier lessee shall be cancelled and the lease settlement will be made on the present person in possession after taking 10% surcharge and a fresh lease settlement will be made. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners drawing attention of this Court to Annexure -4 of W.P. (C) No.7235 of 2017 that though a representation dated 02.06.2005 has been made with the aforesaid prayer but the respondent no.3 is sitting over the matter and is not disposing of the same.

¶91

So far as W.P. (C) No. 7459 of 2017 is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that nine petitioners of the said writ petition filed nine separate representations to the aforesaid effect which has been kept at Annexure-9 series and the respondent no.3 is sitting over the matter and is not disposing of the same.

¶92

So far as W.P. (C) No. 7292 of 2017 is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in these writ petitions, the petitioners submitted that the petitioners will file a

¶93

W.P. (C) No.7235 of 2017 with analogous cases

¶94

¶95

fresh application before the respondent no.3- Khas Mahal Officer, Hazaribagh with a prayer to issue fresh lease of land.

¶96

So far as fact of W.P. (C) No.6186 of 2017 is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners drawing attention of this Court to Annexure-6 and 6/1 of the said writ petition which are the copy of the notices issued by the respondent no.3 for vacating the lands in question and to remove the construction made thereon and also drawing attention of this Court to Annexure-7; that the petitioner no.6 has only submitted a representation on 22.10.2017.

¶97

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners abandon their original prayer in the writ petition and modifies their prayer and submit that they will file a fresh representation before the respondent no.3 for issue of fresh lease of the lands in terms of the resolution No.7/Kha Ma (Vivid)313/14/239/Ra dated 29.03.2016 and the respondent no.3 be directed to consider the same within a reasonable time.

¶98

Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 has no serious objection.

¶99

Considering the aforesaid facts, all these writ petitions are disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh representation for issue of fresh lease of the lands in terms of the resolution No.7/Kha Ma (Vivid)-313/14/239/Ra dated 29.03.2016 and in case, such a representation is submitted to the respondent no.3, the respondent no.3 is directed to consider the same and

¶100

W.P. (C) No.7235 of 2017 with analogous cases

¶101

¶102

pass a reasoned and speaking order, in respect of the same, within eight weeks from the date of submission of such representations by the petitioners.

¶103

All the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.

¶104

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶105

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 25^th June, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-

¶106

W.P. (C) No.7235 of 2017 with analogous cases

¶107

Sheo Suman Saurav Singh And Ors. v. State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheo Suman Saurav Singh And Ors. v. State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Robin Kumar Roy Vs the State of Jharkhand

Saurav Jallan Alias Chiku Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anant Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lal Jay Kumar Nath Shahdeo And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand Represented Through Secretary Land And Revenue And Ors.

Sambhu Nath Mandal Vs State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner

Bijay Kishore Alias Chunu Prasad Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand