Ritalal Prasad Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

10.Mosomat Sohia Devi, W/o Late Karu Mahto, R/o Village-Itasani, PO-Orkhar, PS-Dhanwar, District-Giridih … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶15

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, Advocate (Through Online Mode) For the Respondent-State : Mr. Aditya Raman, AC to GA-III -----

¶16

06/17.07.2025 The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of

¶17

direction upon the concerned respondent authorities to take action against the respondent nos. 7 and 8 for not registering an F.I.R against the respondent nos. 9 and 10 who had given false joint declaration before the respondent no. 7 at the time of registration of the sale deed no. 1441 dated 16.11.2021.

¶18

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 9 executed a sale deed no. 1441 dated 16.11.2021 in favour of the respondent no. 10 selling 5 decimals of land including 3 decimals land of P.W.D Road (Dhanwar to Sariya) appertaining to Plot No. 245, Khata No. 7, Mouza-Itasani, P.S – Dhanwar, P.S No. 276, District-Giridih, which was already acquired vide Notification No. 2434 dated 28.12.1972 for the purpose of widening of Dhanwar-Saria Road. The husband of the respondent

¶19

¶20

 2025:JHHC:19626

¶21

no. 9 including her other legal heirs had also received compensation in lieu of the said acquisition.

¶22

3. It is further submitted that respondent nos. 9 and 10 had given false declaration before the respondent no. 7 with respect to the said acquired land that the same was not a public land relying upon which, the respondent no. 7 registered the sale deed no. 1441 dated 16.11.2021 executed by the respondent no. 9 in favour of the respondent no. 10.

¶23

4. It is also submitted that in compliance of the order passed by a Bench of this Court in B.A No. 2818 of 2020 and B.A No. 2880 of 2020, the respondent no. 3 had issued directions to all the District Sub-Registrars/Deputy Commissioners to upload the details of all acquired raiyati land on National Generic Document Registration System (NGDRS) portal and not to register the same. The respondent no. 3 vide letter no. 930 dated 21.09.2016, had also directed all the Deputy Commissioners/Additional Collectors/ Sub-Registrars to register FIR and to initiate proceedings against the persons involved in executing sale deed on the basis of impersonation, false documents, false declaration and false evidences.

¶24

5. It is further submitted that when the petitioner came to know about sale of the said 3 decimals of acquired land which is adjoining to his house, he made several correspondences with the respondent authorities to register F.I.R against the respondent nos. 9 and 10 and to take action against them, however, the same remained unresponded which has compelled him to prefer the

¶25

¶26

 2025:JHHC:19626

¶27

present writ petition.

¶28

6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition as the land in question is a government land.

¶29

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶30

8. The claim of the petitioner is that the respondent no. 9 has sold 3 decimals of government land. It is thus an admitted fact that the petitioner has no right, title and interest over the same. Moreover, the said 3 decimals land is owned by Public Works Department. Even if it is assumed that there is some substance in the claim of the petitioner, then also it is for the Government to take appropriate action against the respondent nos. 9 and 10 who are alleged to have been involved in selling the said government land.

¶31

9. On being asked about the locus standi of the petitioner to file the present writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to explain as to how his interest is being affected by the said sale. The only claim of the petitioner is that he is the owner of a plot adjacent to the said government land.

¶32

10. It is a well settled principle of law that in order to have locus standi for invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, an applicant should ordinarily be one who has personal or individual right in the subject-matter of the application. Infringement of some legal right or sustaining injury to any legally

¶33

¶34

 2025:JHHC:19626

¶35

protected interest of a person is necessary to give him locus standi in the matter.

¶36

11. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to show that his legal rights have been violated by the action of the concerned respondents. The petitioner has also failed to show any injury caused to him by sale of the said land. As such, I am of the view that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition.

¶37

12. Otherwise also, the petitioner has failed to describe the boundary of his land in the writ petition to substantiate his claim that his land is adjoining to the said land and as such, the said claim of the petitioner has also no leg to stand.

¶38

13. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed with a cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the petitioner in favour of the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA) within four weeks from the date of passing of the order.

¶39

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶40

Manish

¶41

Ritalal Prasad Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ritalal Prasad Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar Agarwal Vs the State of Jharkhand

M/S Shri Khatu Shyam Udyog through Its Proprietor Shri Shyam Sunder Sharma Vs Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (Jbvnl) through Its Managing Director

Chandan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bokaro Steel Mines College through Its Principal Sri Rajendra Prasad Shukla Vs Employees Provident Fund Organization

Binod Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Principal Secretary Irrigation Department

Mukesh Kumar Agarwal Vs Punjab National Bank Thro Its Chairman Cum Managing Director