Jharkhand High Court
Raghu Oroan vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 6 February, 2017
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (C) No. 7115 of 2016
Raghu Oraon ..... Petitioner
vs.
State of Jharkhand & others ......Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sameer Saurabh, Adv.
For the Respondents : J. C to G.A.IV
4/6.2.2017 Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead Mr. Dilip Sahu against whom the order of restoration has been passed, as respondent no. 6 in the instant writ petition, for which correction be carried out by counsel for the petitioner during the course of the day in red ink.
Petitioner contends that despite the order of restoration passed under Section 71A of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 in S.AR (Land Restoration) Case no. 26/200809 (T.R No. 59/200809) dated 2.3.2014 in favour of the petitioner and representation made thereafter including instruction to respondent no. 5, Circle Officer, Ormanjhi vide Annexure5 delivery of possession is not being executed. It is stated on affidavit that no appeal or revision has been preferred against the order passed in S.A.R. Case by any aggrieved person.
Counsel for the RespondentState prays for and is allowed 4 weeks' time to obtain instructions in the matter and file counter affidavit positively.
If for some valid reason, counter affidavit is not filed within the aforesaid time, it may be filed within the extended period of 2 weeks thereafter, however, with a cost of Rs. 3,000/ to the petitioner. In that case, respondents would also indicate their reasons for inability to file counter affidavit within first four weeks.
List it accordingly after 6 weeks under the appropriate heading.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh,J) jk