Parmand Gupta v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC8 Jan 2026WPC/2458/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand HC, W.P. (C) No.2458 of 2022, decided 08-01-2026 by Rajesh Kumar, J.: writ petition against show-cause notice dated 19.04.2022 in JPLE Case No. 02/2022-23 under Section 3, Jharkhand Public Land Encroachment Act X 1956 (encroachment over government land, 40x40 ft, Plot No.3130, Khata No.1000, Mouza Haludbani, East Singhbhum) DISPOSED OF; second JPLE proceeding found to relate to different land area in same plot/khata, basis of writ petition did not survive; liberty given to pursue remedy under law.

What did the court decide?

No quashing relief granted; writ petition disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to pursue his remedy in accordance with law. ¶¶29

Parmand Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:JHHC:367

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)

¶4

W.P. (C) No.2458 of 2022

¶5

¶6

1. Parmand Gupta, aged about 44 years, Son of late Rajendra Saw

¶7

2. Kiran Devi, aged about 41 years, W/o Paramanand Gupta. Both are resident of P.O.-Haludbani, P.S.-Sundarnagar, District – Singhbhum East. …. …. Petitioner(s)

¶8

Versus

¶9

1. The State of Jharkhand.

¶10

2. The Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum East, P.O.+P.S.-Sakchi, District – East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur.

¶11

3. The Circle Officer-cum-Authority Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, Jamshedpur, P.O.+P.S.-Sakchi, District – East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur.

¶12

4. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dalbhum, P.O.+P.S.-Sakchi, District – East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. …. …. Respondent(s)

¶13

¶14

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶15

¶16

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arbind Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhijeet Anand, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-II

¶17

¶18

11/Dated: 08^th January, 2026

¶19

1. The present writ petition has been filed for following reliefs:-

¶20

“a. To issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the notice dated 19.04.2022 issued in JPLE Case No. 02/2022-23 under Section 3 of the Jharkhand Public Land Encroachment Act X 1956 (Annexure-5), issued by learned Collector, Jamshedpur, whereby and whereunder he has directed to appear and file show cause, why such encroachment shall not be removed; AND

¶21

b. For any other relief or reliefs as your Lordships may deem fit and proper for which the petitioner is very much entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶22

¶23

The description of the land is as follows:-

¶24

“measuring area 40×40 feet, situated at Plot No.3130, corresponding to old plot non.2119, khata No.1000 (old khata no.260) under Mouza Haludbani, P.S. Sundarnagar in the district of Singhbhum East.”

¶25

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Respondent No.3, of which paragraph-25 is relevant which reads as under:-

¶26

2026:JHHC:367

¶27

“25. That with regard to the statement made by ne petitioners in paragraph 22 of the writ application under reply, it is humbly stated and submitted that the second JPLE Case No. 02/2022-23 is for removing encroachment over the government land measuring 40 ft X 40 ft in portion of Plot No. 3130 under Khata no. 1000, Mouza Haludbani. The second JPLE proceeding is with respect to a different land area in the same plot no. and khata no.”

¶28

4. Thus, there is different proceedings. Hence, the basis of the writ petition does not survive.

¶29

5. In view of the above, the present writ petition is hereby disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to pursue his remedy in accordance with law.

¶30

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶31

Dated: 08^th January, 2026 Amar/Uploaded on 13.01.2026

¶32

Page | 2

¶33

W.P. (C) No.2458 of 2022

Parmand Gupta v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parmand Gupta 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendra Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand

Basant Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Department of Land and Revenue

Sant Tulsi Apartment through Its Developer Kavita Prasad Vs Ranchi Municipal Corporation

Firoz Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mahendra Mishra Vs the Methodist Church in India, through Its General Secretary, Rev. Dr. Newton Manilal Parmar

Ms Universal Automated Fitness Centre through Its Partner Namely Punit Kauntia Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Department of Transport