Bharat Engineering and Body Building Co. Pvt. Ltd. through Krishna Bhalotia Vs State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Bharat Engineering and Body Building Co. Pvt. Ltd. through Krishna Bhalotia Vs State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief granted; the petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to raise the jurisdictional issue before the SDO, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur if the Eviction Suit is still pending, and otherwise leaving the question open for the appropriate authority.

¶¶15 (judg. para 5)

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceeding in HRC Case No. 68/2019 before the SDM-cum-House Rent Controller, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur was unsustainable for want of jurisdictional fact, warranting quashing of the order dated 3.9.2019 (Annexure-3) and all subsequent proceedings.

¶¶12 (judg. para 2)

Court's answer

The Court did not itself decide the jurisdictional question; it directed the petitioner to raise the jurisdictional issue before the SDO, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur if the Eviction Suit is still pending, and if the Eviction Suit is found already disposed of, the question is to be left open for the decision of the appropriate authority.

¶¶14 (judg. para 4)

Key takeaways

The Court observed, in passing, that the petitioner's challenge was one to the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Officer and that the petitioner is admittedly a tenant.obiter¶¶13 (judg. para 3)

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (W.P.(C) No. 157 of 2020, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, Ananda Sen, J., decided 11.05.2026) by Bharat Engineering and Body Building C. Pvt. Limited seeking a declaration that the proceeding in HRC Case No. 68/2019 before the learned SDM-cum-House Rent Controller, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur was unsustainable for lack of jurisdictional fact, and quashing of the order dated 3.9.2019 (Annexure-3) and subsequent proceedings. The Court noted that the petitioner is admittedly a tenant challenging the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Officer, but did not decide the jurisdictional question itself; it directed the petitioner to raise the issue before the SDO, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur if the Eviction Suit is still pending, and if the suit is found disposed of, left the question open for the appropriate authority. Petition disposed of.

2026:JHHC:14202

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 157 of 2020

Bharat Engineering and Body Building C. Pvt. Limited, a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Sanokh Mansion, First Floor, R- Road, Bistupur, P.O and P.S. Bistupur, Jamshedpur-1, District East Singhbhum, represented through authorized representative Krishna Bhalotia, son of Shri Gajanand Bhalotia, resident of 43, CH Area (North West), P.O Sonari, P.S. Sonari, District- East Singhbhum. .... Petitioner(s).

Versus

State of Jharkhand.

Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-House Rent Controller, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur.

Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee, Bistupur Jamshedpur district East Singhbhum, represented through its Special officer both having their office at Bistupur, Jamshedpur East Singhbhum.

M/s Tatanagar Construction Private Limited, a company incorporated under Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at R- Road, Bistupur, P.O and P.S. Bistupur, represented through its Director Mrs. Nidhi Nagelia, wife of Mr. Vikash Nagelia, resident of Holding No. 31/C, Road No. 4, CH Area, Bistupur, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum. . … Respondent(s)

-----CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. -----For the Petitioner(s): Mr. P.A. S Pati, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Amit Sinha and Ratna Prabha, Advocates.

12/11.05.2026 Heard the parties.

In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for declaration that the proceeding in connection with HRC Case No. 68/2019 is unsustainable in the eyes of law and there was lack of jurisdictional fact to proceed in connection with the said case by the learned SDM-cum-House Rent Controller, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur. It has further been prayed that after such declaration be pleased to quash the order dated 3.9.2019 (Annexure-3) as well as all subsequent proceedings thereto in the said HRC Case.

From the aforesaid prayer, it is clear that the petitioner is challenging the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Officer. Admittedly the petitioner is a tenant.

Since the petitioner is challenging the jurisdiction, I direct the petitioner to raise the aforesaid issued before the SDO, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur, if the Eviction Suit is still pending. If the said issue is raised and the Eviction Suit is pending, the SDO will pass an appropriate order on the issue of jurisdiction. If it is found that the Eviction Suit has already been disposed of, the aforesaid question will be left open for the decision of the appropriate authority.

Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of.

11^th May, 2026 Anu/-CP2. Uploaded on 12.5.2026