Jharkhand High Court
Md. Sakil Ahmad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 March, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 JHA 450
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.6335 of 2018
--------
1. Md. Sakil Ahmad, aged 51 years, son of Late Md. Zafiruddin, resident of at F-11, Main Gate, E.S.I., Hospital Colony Maithan Dam, Kalia Maithan Dam, P.S. Maithan, District Dhanbad.
2. Md. Sikandar, aged about 38 years, son of Md. Idrish, resident of village Baghaguri, near Masjid- Kumardhubi, Ranchi Mohli, P.S. Chirkunda, District- Dhanbad.
...... Petitioners Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. Hazaribagh, District- Hazaribagh.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad.
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad.
5. Arun Kumar Gaddhyan, son of late Mahabir Prasad Gaddyan (Agrawala) resident of Chirkunda, P.O. & P.S. Chirkunda, District Dhanbad (Dhanbad) ...... Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Md. Shamim Akhtar,
----------------------------
02/Dated 01st March, 2019
1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder direction has been sought for mutation of their names in the mutation register and to accept the rent.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has purchased the land from the vendor, who was faced the proceeding initiated under the Public Land Encroachment Act, wherein one BPLE proceeding as contained under Annexure-3, the land in question has been held to be not public land and thereafter the aforesaid proceeding was dropped.
2Subsequently, another proceeding was initiated in B.P.L.E. Case No. 39 of 2019 which has also been dropped by holding therein that the land in question is not a public land.
3. The petitioner has purchased the land from the vendor, in whose favour B.P.L.E. proceedings have been dropped and after purchase of the land, have filed application for making necessary correction in the records of rights by instituting two cases i.e. Mutation Case Nos. 738/2018-19 and 737/2018-19, but the Circle Officer, Nirsa is taking no decision. The petitioner is pursuing the aforesaid proceeding by taking plea of dropping of the B.P.L.E. proceeding and the acceptance of rent, from the erstwhile title-holder but the reason best known that the Circle Officer in not disposing the said mutation cases, therefore, the instant writ petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State-respondent has submitted that the writ petition may be disposed of by directing the Circle Officer, Nirsa to take final decision in the aforesaid mutation cases.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their consent this writ petition is disposed of at this stage, by taking into consideration the fact that the mutation cases are pending before the Circle Officer, Nirsa wherein the decision is yet to come.
As has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the plea which has been urged by them in the writ petition, has been agitated before the mutating authority for passing appropriate order, in view thereof, it would be just and proper to direct the Circle Officer, Nirsa to dispose of the Mutation Case Nos. 738/2018-19 and 737/2018-19 in accordance with law within a reasonable period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
3
6. Needless to say that the acceptance of rent would depend upon final decision to be taken by the Circle Officer, Nirsa as directed hereinabove.
7. Accordingly the writ petition, stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Madhav