Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Jharkhand High Court

Harish Chandra Manjhi & Ors vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 20 August, 2013

Author: Prashant Kumar

Bench: Prashant Kumar

        IN   THE     HIGH    COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                              W.P.(C)No. 4466 of 2011.
                                          -----
      1. Harish Chandra Manjhi
      2. Lalit Narayan
      3. Paneshwar Prasad Agarwal
      4. Sher Mohammad Ansari
      5. Madhusudan Rai
      6. Sampurn Rajhans
      7. Sheela Devi
      8. Gaur Pada Pal                                                Petitioners.
                                      Versus
      1. The State of Jharkhand
      2. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro
      3. The D.P.L.R., Bokaro
      4. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Bokaro
      5. The Managing Director, Bokaro Steel Plant                    Respondents.
                                         .....
      Coram        :     The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar.
                                         -----
      For the Petitioners :           Sri Arbind Kumar Sinha
      For the Respondents:            J.C. to S.C.(Mines) & J.C. to Mr. Rajiv Ranjan
                                         -----
04/20.08.2013

. This application has been filed for a direction commanding the respondents not to interfere with the cultivating work of the petitioners over the land in disputes. Petitioners further prayed for restraining the respondents from erecting boundary wall and making any construction over the land of petitioners enumerated at paragraph no.5 of the writ application.

It is stated that ancestors of petitioners were raiyat of the aforesaid land and they were recognised so even after vesting of the Jamindari. It is stated that the petitioners were cultivating their lands till 2008. But respondents had dispossessed them and erecting boundary wall over the said land. It is also stated by the petitioners that the aforesaid lands had not been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act.

Thus, from the averments made in the writ application, it appears that dispute between the parties is with respect to the right title and interest over the lands mentioned at paragraph no.5 of the writ application. Which in my view can be resolved by filing a suit before the competent civil court. Thus, I am not inclined to entertain this writ application.

Accordingly, the same is rejected. However, if petitioners so desires may file a suit before the competent civil court.

( Prashant Kumar, J.) Pramanik/