Jharkhand High Court
The Additional Director General vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ... on 18 July, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No.373 of 2025
----
The Additional Director General, Directorate General Defence Estates, Raksha Sampada Bhawan, Ulaan Baatar Marg, P.O. & P.S.-Delhi Cantonment, Delhi Cantonment-110010 & Ors. .... .... Appellant(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Land and Revenue Department, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand & Ors. .... .... Respondent(s)
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
----
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I.
Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, C.G.C.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, A.A.G.-III
----
th
02/Dated: 18 July, 2025
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is of the board of the Division Bench No.1.
2. The matter was mentioned yesterday by making motion showing the urgency in the matter that there is likelihood of handing over possession of the land in favour of the private parties i.e. respondent Nos.3 and 4. Hence, the matter has been prayed to be listed in the list for its hearing on priority basis. The mentioning memo has been allowed and the case has been listed today on the board of the Division Bench No.1.
3. The matter has again been mentioned before this Court in view of the administrative order passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice to mention the case which is urgent in nature and accordingly, the case has been directed to be taken up at 12:30 P.M.
4. Learned counsel for the State is present.
5. Accordingly, the matter has been heard with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The present appeal has been filed under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent directed against the order/judgment dated 08.05.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench in W.P.(C) No.4339 of 2022.
7. An interlocutory application being I.A. No.8681 of 2025 has been filed based upon the office note by which the delay of 17 days has been shown to be there in filing the instant appeal.
8. However, according to the learned counsel for the A.S.G.I., it is not a case where the delay ought not to have been pointed out the defect, since, the original order was having some typographical error, hence, the same was modified by subsequent order dated 10.06.2025, hence, the period to file appeal will be counted from 10.06.2025. The present appeal, since, has been filed on 26.06.2025, hence, it is within time.
9. Further, it has been submitted that to explain these circumstances, an interlocutory application being I.A. No.8681 of 2025 has been filed by invoking the jurisdiction conferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
10. Issue notice upon the respondents in the matter of limitation as well as on the issue of admission, both under speed post as well as ordinary process, for which requisites etc. must be filed within two weeks.
11. Notice is made returnable on 08.09.2025.
12. Mr. Shahbaj Akhtar, learned counsel, waives notice to represent the respondent-State and has sought for three weeks' time to file counter affidavit both on the issue of limitation and admission.
Page | 2 L.P.A. No.373 of 2025
13. Learned A.S.G.I. has further submitted that one interlocutory application being I.A. No. 8291 of 2025 has also been filed for stay of the implementation of the judgment dated 08.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 4339 of 2022 whereby prayer for quashing of the order dated 08.07.2022 passed by the 2nd Respondent (Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi) in Misc. Case No. 8 R28/2018-19 by which the land situated within Mouza Siram in the District of Ranchi appertaining to Municipal Survey Plot No. 851 admeasuring at area of 3.75 acres and the land appertaining to Municipal Survey Plot No. 908 admeasuring an area of 1.657 acres was directed to be released in favour of 3rd & 4th Respondents, has been declined to be interfere with.
14. It has been contended that the interim protection is required otherwise the land pertaining to Mouza Siram in the District of Ranchi appertaining to Municipal Survey Plot No. 851 admeasuring at area of 3.75 acres and the land appertaining to Municipal Survey Plot No. 908 admeasuring an area of 1.657 acres which is now in the possession of the army, appellant herein, will have to be handed over in possession of the respondent Nos.3 and 4.
15. The argument has been advanced that if the order dated 08.05.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4339 of 2022 is not stayed then the appellant will suffer irreparable loss and injury. It has further been contended that the prima facie case and balance of convenience also lies in the favour of the petitioner/appellant.
Page | 3 L.P.A. No.373 of 2025
16. It has been contended that the land has been vested upon the Indian Army in view of the implication of the requisition which has been made under Section 5 (2) of the Requisition of Land (Continuance of Power) Act, 1947.
17. It has been contended that the requisition for acquisition of land was sometime in the year 1941 and based upon that requisition the land had been acquired and, in the consequence, thereof had been vested absolutely in the appropriate government free from all encumbrances, in view of the provision of Section 5(2) of the Requisition of Land (Continuance of Power) Act, 1947 thereof.
18. It has been contended that the aforesaid statutory provision has not been considered by the learned Single Judge in right prospective, rather, the learned Single Judge has gone into the premise by taking into consideration the mandate of the Section 299(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935 corresponding to Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
19. It has further been contended that property involved in the present case claimed by the respondent no.3 is also part of the complaint i.e. ECIR Case No. 05 of 2023 and the said complaint is lodged for commission of offence of money laundering and the content of the complaints will show that the title claimed by the private respondent no.3 and 4 is based upon the forged documents basis upon which the finding have been arrived by the respondent No.2 i.e. Deputy Commissioner in the impugned order is not sustainable in eyes of law.
20. The learned counsel has further submitted that the aforesaid fact would be evident from paragraph 9.12 of annexure -32 i.e copy of ECIR Case No. 05 Page | 4 L.P.A. No.373 of 2025 of 2023, wherein it has come that he Bishnu Kumar Agarwal in connivance with the accused person Chhavi Ranjan acquired another government property (property of the defence) admeasuring 5.883 acres, situated at M.S Plot no. 908, 851(P) and 910(P), Ward no. VI of Ranchi Municipality, Ranchi vide deed No 922 of 2018 (RUD No. 120).
21. Further, it has been contended that the implication either of Section 299(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935 or Article 300-A of the Constitution of India will not come in the way of issue of acquisition of the land in favour of the appropriate government in view of the specific provision as provided under Section 5 of the Requisition of Land (Continuance of Power) Act, 1947.
22. Learned A.S.G.I. on the basis of aforesaid ground has submitted that there is no consideration of statutory provision as applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case and the land still in the possession of the Indian Army, hence, if the interest will not be protected by passing ad-interim order then the land if will be transferred in favour of the respondent Nos.3 and 4, the appellant will suffer irreparable loss and not only that there is every chance of creating a third party right by further disposing of the land in favour of the third parties.
23. This Court is conscious with the settled position of law that while granting ad interim stay, three principles are required to be considered - (i) Prima facie case; (ii) The irreparable loss; and (iii) Balance of convenience.
24. In Dalpat Kumar and Another vs. Prahlad Singh and Others, reported in AIR 1993 SC 276, the Hon'ble Apex Court has explained the scope of Page | 5 L.P.A. No.373 of 2025 interim order i.e. the phrases "prima facie case", "balance of convenience" and "irreparable loss" are not rhetoric phrases for incantation but words of width and elasticity to meet myriad situations presented by man's ingenuity in given facts and circumstances, but always is hedged with sound exercise of judicial discretion to meet the ends of Justice. The facts are eloquent and speak for themselves. It is well-nigh impossible to find from facts prima facie case and balance of convenience.
25. Reference is also required to be made with respect to the principle governing the field while granting ad-interim stay by the Court of Law as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M. Gurudas & Ors. Vrs. Rasaranjan & Ors., reported in AIR 2006 Supreme Court 3275, wherein at para-19, it has been laid down that while considering the application for injunction, the Court should pass an order thereupon having regard to prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.
26. This Court, considering the aforesaid submission deems it fit and proper to issue notice upon the respondent Nos.3 and 4.
27. Meanwhile, the status quo so far as relates to the land in question, as existing today shall be maintained.
28. Put up this case on 08.09.2025.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Amar-Shahid/-
Page | 6 L.P.A. No.373 of 2025