Kartik Rai And Ors vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 29 March, 2016

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Kartik Rai And Ors vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 29 March, 2016

Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                              W. P. (C) No. 3835 of 2014
                                         ...
               1.   Kartik Rai
               2.   Sibu Rai
               3.   Nirmal Rai
               4.   Lachhu Rai                                    ...   ...Petitioners
                                  -V e r s u s-
              1. The State of Jharkhand
              2. Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad
              3. Circle Officer, Nirsa, Dhanbad
              4. Lakhi Devi                                       ...     ...Respondents
         CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
                                         ...
              For the Petitioner         : - Mr. Prabhas Chandra Jha, Advocate.
              For the Respondent          :- JC to GA
                                         ...
04/29.03.2016

Issuance of Basgit Parcha vide order dated 23.09.1999 in favour of the respondent no. 4 in respect of Mouza Deviana, Khata No. 207 old (32 new), plot no. 1949 old (2040 new) of an area 12 decimals is being challenged by the petitioners alleging that it is their ancestral property inherited from the recorded tenant and also inserted in the revisional khatiyan.

It transpires from the pleadings on record that respondent no. 4 has also preferred a Title Suit No. 162 of 2008 in respect of the same plot for declaration of her right, title and interest on the basis of said Basgit Parcha where the petitioners are defendants and contesting the suit. It further appears from the stand of the respondent-State that under the provisions of Section 21 of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947, Collector of the District has the power to call for and examine records on his own motion or on the application of any party or on reference being made by any subordinate authority for satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceeding or to the correctness, legality or propriety of an order passed by the Collector under the Act after allowing the concerned parties opportunity of being heard. It can direct to reopen the case and dispose it of afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

In view of the aforesaid two courses open for the petitioner, first to contest and defend the title suit preferred by the respondent no. 4 for declaration of right, title, interest and possession over the same plot in question and/or to invoke the provisions of the Act of 1947 for annulment of Basgit Parcha on any such available grounds of law and facts, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition to pursue the matter before the appropriate forum.

The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.

   Kamlesh/                                              (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court