Disposed¶15

Yadunandan Deo v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC2 Apr 2025WPC/671/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi; W.P.(C) No. 671 of 2025; Yadunandan Deo v. State of Jharkhand & Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar; certified copies of khatiyans; Mouza Tabhaghat / Sagdaha / Basmandih / Deopur / Sarsa; Jamabandi Nos. 67, 68, 69, 84, 83, 57, 45, 22, 39, 40, 116, 95/2; Title (Partition) Suit No. 45/2023; co-sharers; representations to Deputy Commissioner; liberty for fresh representation; decision in accordance with law within eight weeks; writ petition disposed of without entering merits; Rajesh Shankar, J.; 02.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to prefer a fresh representation before respondent no. 2; respondent no. 2 directed to take an appropriate decision/step in accordance with law within eight weeks from the date of filing of the representation. ¶15

Yadunandan Deo Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:JHHC:10195

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 671 of 2025

¶3

Yadunandan Deo, S/o Late Mato Deo, R/o Village-Tabhaghat, PO & PS-Jasidih, District-Deoghar … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar… … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sudhansu Kr Deo, Advocate For the Respondents : Mrs. Nirupama, AC to Sr. SC-II -----

¶8

04/02.04.2025 The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 2 to provide certified copies of five khatiyans of the lands appertaining to Mouza-Tabhaghat No. 208, Jamabandi Nos. 67, 68, 69, 84 & 83, Mouza-Sagdaha No. 207, Jamabandi Nos. 57 & 45, Mouza-Basmandih No. 228, Jamabandi No. 22, Mouza-Deopur No. 227, Jamabandi Nos. 39, 40 & 45 and Mouza-Sarsa No. 226, Jamabandi Nos. 116 & 95/2 which, according to the petitioner, belong to him and are required to be produced in Title (Partition) Suit No. 45/2023 for partition amongst his family members (co-sharers).

¶9

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite various representations made by the petitioner before the respondent no. 2 – the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, no action has been taken by the said respondent in this regard, which has compelled him to prefer the present writ petition.

¶10

3. Mrs. Nirupama, AC to Sr. SC-II appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that if the petitioner prefers a fresh representation in this regard before the respondent no. 2, an appropriate decision/step will be taken by the said respondent

¶11

¶12

2025:JHHC:10195

¶13

within a timeframe.

¶14

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of prayer made in the writ petition, without entering into merit of the case, the petitioner is given liberty to prefer a fresh representation on the present issue before the respondent no. 2. On receipt of the said representation, the respondent no. 2 shall take an appropriate decision/step in accordance with law within eight weeks from the date of filing of the representation.

¶15

5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid liberty and direction.

¶16

Manish

¶17

Yadunandan Deo v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yadunandan Deo 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

Kishan Keot Alias Teta Kewat Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prema Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Fazle Karim Alias MD Fazale Karim Alias Fazel Karim Vs the State of Jharkhand

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