Disposed¶21

Laxman Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 Apr 2025WPC/568/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Laxman Singh v. State of Jharkhand, W.P.(C) No.568 of 2025, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, Order No.07 dated 03.04.2025 (Rajesh Shankar, J.) — alternative/efficacious remedy; appeal before Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Ramgarh; rent receipt; IRR Case No.41 of 2022; Circle Officer, Patratu; Khata no.50 plot no.499, village Uchringa; condonation of delay to be considered leniently; writ petition disposed of with liberty to appeal.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Ramgarh against the order dated 19.04.2023; if the appeal is filed within three weeks with an application for condonation of delay, respondent no.4 shall consider the condonation application leniently and hear the appeal on merits. ¶21

Laxman Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

( 2025:JHHC:10187 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.568 of 2025

¶3

¶4

Laxman Singh, S/o Late Langar Singh, resident of Ganjhu Tola, Uchringa, P.O. Palani, P.S. Patratu, District Ramgarh.

¶5

.......... Petitioner.

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

The Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh.

¶9

The Circle Officer, Patratu, District Ramgarh.

¶10

The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Ramgarh.

¶11

.......... Respondents.

¶12

----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----For the Petitioner : Mrs. Nirupama, Advocate For the State : Ms. Ruchi Mukti, AC to AAG-IA ----- Order No.07 Date: 03.04.2025

¶13

At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, let the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Ramgarh be impleaded as respondent no.4.

¶14

Necessary insertion in the cause title of the writ petition be made by the counsel for the petitioner.

¶15

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 19^th April, 2023 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the Circle Officer, Patratu- respondent no.3 in IRR Case No.41 of 2022, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner for issuance of rent receipt with respect to the land appertaining to Khata no.50, plot no.499, area 12.65 acres, situated at village Uchringa has been rejected.

¶16

Ms. Ruchi Mukti, learned A.C. to A.A.G.-IA, appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioner has the efficacious remedy of preferring appeal before the Deputy Collector Land

¶17

¶18

( 2025:JHHC:10187 )

¶19

Reforms, Ramgarh- respondent no.4 against the aforesaid order passed by the respondent no.3.

¶20

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has the efficacious remedy of preferring appeal before the respondent no.4, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition at this stage. However, the petitioner is at liberty to prefer appeal before the respondent no.4 against the aforesaid order passed by the respondent no.3. If the petitioner prefers the said appeal within three weeks along with an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of the same, the respondent no.4 shall consider the said application leniently and proceed to hear the appeal on merit.

¶21

The present writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid liberty and direction.

¶22

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶23

Sanjay/

¶24

Laxman Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxman Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pramod Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand, through Secretary Department of Revenue and Land Reform, Ranchi

Indian Bank, Represented through Its Chief Manager, Mr. Suresh Chandra Chauhan Vs State of Jharkhand

Mahadeo Prasad Roy Vs the State of Jharkhand

M/S Kohinoor Steel Private Limited Represented by Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Anutosh Majumdar Vs Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited through Its Chairman

Anoop Orion Franclin Bakhla Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nitu Soni Vs the State of Jharkhand, through the Deputy Commissioner-Cum-District Magistrate, Ranchi