Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Jharkhand High Court

Kedarnath Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 6 November, 2017

Author: D.N. Patel

Bench: Amitav K. Gupta, D.N. Patel

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
               L.P.A. No. 696 of 2015
                     With
               I.A. No.651 of 2016
Kedarnath Singh, son of late Mahtha BhimSingh, resident of New A.G.
Co-operative Colony, Kadru, Ranchi
                              ...       ...         ...     ...         ...      ...      Appellant
                          Versus
1.     The State of Jharkhand
2.     The    Secretary   land       Reforms        and     Revenue        Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Dhurwa, Ranchi
3.     The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi
4.     The Circle Officer, Nagri Anchal, Ranchi
                                 ...        ...    ...        ...    ...       Respondents
                           ------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA
                           -----
 For the Appellant:      M/s. K.P. Deo, Advocate
 For the Respondents: M/s. Manoj Kumar (SC-Mines)
                           ------
 08/Dated: 06th November, 2017

Per D.N. Patel, ACJ.

1) This interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 02 days in preferring the instant Letters Patent Appeal.

2) Having heard learned counsel and looking to the reasons stated in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the interlocutory application, there are reasonable reasons for condoning the delay in preferring the instant Letters Patent Appeal.

3) Accordingly, I.A. No. 651 of 2016 is allowed and delay in filing the instant appeal is condoned.

4) Counsel for the appellant (original petitioner) submitted that the appellant claims that he has purchased about 25 decimals of land in Khata No.383, Plot No.260, Sub Plot No.260/1B in Village Pundag, Kewat No.2 and Thana No.228, District Ranchi through registered sale deed dated 10th June, 1983 and they are in possession of the land in question since long. Previously, they were paying the rent, but, the Government has stopped taking the rent from 1994.Even the mutation is in favour of this appellant.

5) Counsel for the appellant submitted that the writ petition was preferred for getting a direction upon the respondents for acceptance of the rent, but, the said writ petition has been disposed of by the learned Single Judge with an observation that writ is not tenable. Hence, the appellant wants to approach the learned trial Court and the same may kindly be permitted.

6) Having heard learned counsels for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated herein above, if the petitioner is claiming ownership upon the property in question, the best remedy available with the appellant (original petitioner) is to approach the Civil Court. Hence, this appellant is permitted to approach the Civil Court in accordance with law before the appropriate forum.

7) This Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of with these observations.

8) As and when the suit is filed and decided by the learned trial Court, the same will be decided on its own merit without being influenced by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.6994 of 2013 dated 5th October, 2015 as well as without being influenced by the observations made in this order.

                                                      (D. N. Patel, ACJ)


Manoj/                                               (Amitav K. Gupta, J)