Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 801 (JHR)

Dipeshwar Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2021-09-27

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2021
JUDGMENT : RAJESH SHANKAR, J. 1. The present writ petition is taken up today through Video Conferencing. I.A. No. 4991 of 2021 2. The present interlocutory application has been filed for exemption of additional Court fee as well as to ignore the defect nos. 6 and 7, as pointed out by the office. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have common interest in challenging the general notice (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) issued by the Deputy Registrar, Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra, Ranchi (in short ‘BIT’) for land demarcation as well as for construction of boundary wall over the land in question. Hence, they are required to pay only one set of Court fee. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering that all the petitioners have common interest in challenging the aforesaid general notice issued by the Deputy Registrar, BIT Mesra, Ranchi, I am of the view that only one set of Court fee is required to be filed in the present writ petition. Hence, the defect regarding filing of additional Court fee, as pointed out by the office, is ignored. 4. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioners, the defect nos.6 and 7, as pointed out by the office are also ignored. 5. I.A. No. 4991 of 2021 stands disposed of. W.P. (C) No. 3077 of 2021 6. The present writ petition has been filed for staying the general notice issued under the signature of Deputy Registrar, Land Records, BIT, Mesra, Ranchi (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) whereby it has been claimed that the different land of village Rudiya, Thana No. 168, Village Mesra, Thana No. 169 and Village Hombai, Thana No. 167 is owned by BIT, Mesra over which the steps for land demarcation as well as for raising boundary wall are being taken. It has further been mentioned in the said general notice that if any person has objection to the same, he/she may approach the Circle Office, Kanke and if any obstruction is made in land demarcation as well as raising of the boundary wall, an appropriate legal action will be taken against such person. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the members of backward classes and are the cultivating raiyats of their land in village Hombai. They have been in possession of the same for last several decades. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the members of backward classes and are the cultivating raiyats of their land in village Hombai. They have been in possession of the same for last several decades. It is highly arbitrary on the part of the BIT, Mesra in issuing the impugned general notice. No notice in any acquisition proceeding had ever been served to any raiyat of the land in question and as such the same can only be said to have been illegally acquired, if at all done. 8. Mr. Ashiwni Bhusan, learned A.C. to Sr. S.C. III appearing on behalf of the State respondents as well as Mr. Srijit Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondent no. 9 jointly submit that it has already been mentioned in the impugned general notice that if any person has objection towards demarcation of the land in question and raising of boundary wall over the same, he/she may approach the office of Circle Officer, Kanke (the respondent no. 6). 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view that the claim made by the petitioners in the present writ petition is factual in nature, which is to be verified at an appropriate level, without entering into the merit of the case, the petitioners are given liberty to prefer their respective objections before the respondent no. 6 along with supporting documents within a period of two weeks. On receipt of the said objections, the respondent no. 6 after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the representative of the respondent no. 9, shall take appropriate informed decision on the said objections of the petitioners as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of such objections. 10. Till the said decision is taken by the respondent no. 9, the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to the land in question. 11. The petitioners have also claimed that they have cultivated paddy crop over a part of the land in question and the authorities of the BIT, Mesra are not permitting them to take care of the said paddy crop. 12. 9, the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to the land in question. 11. The petitioners have also claimed that they have cultivated paddy crop over a part of the land in question and the authorities of the BIT, Mesra are not permitting them to take care of the said paddy crop. 12. If the petitioners have already cultivated paddy crop over a part of the land in question, in exception to the order of status quo, they shall be permitted to take care of the same till its harvest, however, cultivation of the paddy crop over the land in question shall not create any equity in favour of the petitioners and their claim over the respective land shall be subject to the decision as may be taken by the respondent no. 6. 13. The writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid liberty and direction.