1. Maya Paul, W/o Late Ravindra Nath Paul, aged about 76 years, 2. Binay v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Department of Land Revenue, Registration and
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.2594 of 2023 1. Maya Paul, W/o Late Ravindra Nath Paul, aged about 76 years, 2. Binay Krishna Paul, S/o late Satya Narayan Paul, aged about 80 years, 3. Amiya Kumar Paul, S/o Late Satya Narayan Paul, aged about 71 years, 4. Bani Barata Paul, S/o Late Nirmal Kumar Paul, aged about 69 years, 5. Uday Shankar Paul, S/o Late Nirmal Kumar Paul, aged about 73 years, All are R/o Patherkothi, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Bank More, District – Petitioners Dhanbad … … Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Department of Land Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jaggananthpur, District Ranchi 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad 4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad 5. The Circle Officer, Baghmara Circle P.O. Baghmara P.S. Nirsa, … Respondents Baghmara Dhanbad, Jharkhand … CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioners For the Respondents For the Intervenor
Legal Reasoning
--- : Mr. Rahul Gupta, Adv. : Mr. Amitesh Kumar Geasen, Adv. : Mr. P.K. Bhattacharya, Advocate --- 04/04.07.2023 2. Learned counsel for the parties are present. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: of for the land records of “That in the instant Writ Application, petitioners pray for issuance appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) particularly in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to make online entry with respect to the land in question on the official web portal of the Jharkhand State Government maintained the Jharkhand State; And / or Further appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) particularly in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to get the land measured through the Government Amin as per the decree passed in favour of the petitioner in Title Suit No.76/2006 and First Appeal No.43/2012 and further for issuance of direction not to harass the petitioners and not let the petitioners run from one office to another without there being any fault on the part of the petitioners. And / or issuance pray for of 2 in Further the petitioners pray for issuance of appropriate the nature of writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) especially mandamus for directing the respondent no.4 to dispose of the representations of the petitioners which has been submitted by the petitioners several times before the respondent no.4 with the prayer to make online entry with respect to the land in question on the web portal of the State Government maintained for the land records: And/ or Such other relief/reliefs as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper to do conscionable justice to the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the respondent – State has submitted that he has received instructions to pray for some more time to file affidavit pursuant to order dated 12.06.2023. 4. Mr. P.K. Bhattacharya, Advocate appears on behalf of the intervenor bringing on record orders passed in Execution Case No.30 of 2023 arising out of decree passed in Title Suit No.76 of 2006. Upon perusal of which, it appears that the execution case is pending arising out of the decree passed in the title suit. Learned counsel has submitted that the executing court has proceeded without taking care of the order dated 12.06.2023 passed by this Court and without disposing of the objection of the intervenor. In para 9 of the intervention application, it has been stated that in MCA No.200 of 2023 (arising out of execution case no.30 of 2023, out of Title Suit No.76 of 2006) order for demarcation has been passed on 26.06.2023. Learned counsel for the intervenor has submitted that he has filed a petition for recall of order dated 26.06.2023. 5. Upon this, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners are senior citizens and they have been deprived of the fruits of the decree passed in the title suit which was decreed as back as on 15.12.2011 against which first appeal has been dismissed on 30.06.2022. Though the State has gone in appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but so far, no order has been passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He has further submitted that to the best of his knowledge the appeal filed by the State is defective. 6. However, during the course of hearing, it is apparent that the pendency of the execution case has not been mentioned in the writ petition. From perusal of the para - 2 of the petition filed in the execution case, it appears that a stand has been taken in the execution proceeding that it is necessary to identify the entire decretal land and demarcate the same though the execution case was in respect of approximately 11.92 acres and it was under possession of M/s Asarfi Hospital - the judgment debtor. It has been asserted that it was necessary to demarcate 85 acres including 11.92 acres in possession of M/s Ashafi Hospital. 7. This Court finds that the matter regarding demarcation is also involved in the execution proceeding which has not been disclosed by the 3 petitioner in this writ petition. This Court vide order dated 12.06.2023 had passed the direction by clearly indicating that if there is any legal impediment in carrying out the directions contained in order dated 12.06.2023, the same should be reflected by the State in the counter-affidavit to be filed. However, no counter-affidavit has been filed, but the pendency of the execution case has been brought to the notice of this Court through the intervention application. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is clear that the matter is under consideration before the executing court. 9. Under such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to proceed any further in this writ petition. However, it is sufficient to observe that the orders passed in this writ petition will have no bearing in the pending execution proceedings. The executing court shall proceed in accordance with law. 10. 11.
Decision
This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending interlocutory application is closed. Saurav/ (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)