Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 621 (JHR)

Syed Rehan v. State of Jharkhand

2022-06-09

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2022
JUDGMENT : The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 3-the Circle Officer, Khelari Circle, District- Ranchi to show cause as to for what reason, rent receipts are being issued in the name of the father of the respondent no. 6 with respect to the petitioner’s land appertaining to plot no. 741, Khata No. 124, Thana No. 18, Mouza- Rai, P.S.- Khelari, District- Ranchi measuring an area of 0.9 acre. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has lawful right over the aforesaid land, the rent receipts of which are being issued in the name of Syed Raffiuddin- the grandfather of the petitioner. It is further submitted that another set of rent receipts of the said land is also being issued in the name of Abdul Rahman- the father of the respondent no. 6 to the extent of 4.5 decimals. The petitioner represented the respondent no. 3 in this regard on 28.05.2019 in pursuance of which the said respondent issued notice as contained in letter no. 370 (ii) dated 23.07.2019 calling upon the concerned parties to appear before him with relevant documents. Though thereafter the petitioner appeared before the respondent no. 3 along with relevant documents, however no one appeared on behalf of other claimants of the land in question. 3. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sahi, learned A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-I appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 3, while referring to petitioner’s representation dated 28.05.2019 (Anneuxre-4 to the writ petition) filed before the respondent no. 3, submits that in the said representation, the petitioner himself has stated that possession of the land in question has forcibly been taken by few persons including the private respondents. Hence, it is not a simple case in which two sets of rent receipts are being issued to two different persons by the respondent no. 3, rather it is the case in which possession of the land in question is in favour of the private respondents. 4. Having considered the said submission of the learned A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-I appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 3, this Court is of the view that the dispute in present matter is not only with respect to issuance of rent receipts by the respondent no. 4. Having considered the said submission of the learned A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-I appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 3, this Court is of the view that the dispute in present matter is not only with respect to issuance of rent receipts by the respondent no. 3 to two different persons for the same land, rather the land in question appears to be in possession of the private respondents and others. Hence, the aforesaid prayer made by the petitioner cannot be considered by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to take alternative recourse as provided under law for redressal of his grievance.