Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 292 (JHR)

Dilip Khalkho v. State of Jharkhand

2025-02-06

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2025
ORDER : 1. Reference may be made to the order dated 6 th September, 2021, whereby the petitioners were directed to file rejoinder to I.A. No.4232 of 2016 filed for intervention in the writ petition. They were also granted time to file substitution petitions for impleadment of legal heirs of the respondent no.3, namely, Albert Khalkho and respondent no.6, namely, Laxman Oraon @ Laxman Khalkho. It was further observed in the said order that the said intervention application filed for arraying the intervener-Charwa Oraon, son of Late Temba Oraon and substitution petitions to be filed for substitution of the respondent nos.3 and 6 would be considered first. 2. I.A. No.1491 of 2016 has been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking factual correction/modification in paragraph no.5 of the writ petition, whereas, rejoinder to the intervention application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners questioning the actual identity of the applicant-Charwa Oraon. 3. Under the said circumstance, the Officer-in-Charge of the Mandar Police Station is directed to make an inquiry with respect to the identity and whereabouts of the applicant- Charwa Oraon s/o Late Temba Oraon, resident of Vilage- Mandar, P.O. & P.S. Mandar, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand and to submit a report within a period of four weeks. I.A. No. 5309 of 2021: 4. The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for substitution of the respondent no.3, namely, Albert Khalkho who has died during pendency of the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent no.3 has died during pendency of the writ petition on 13 th October, 2019. A copy of his death certificate has been annexed as Annexure-A to the present interlocutory application. It is further submitted that the deceased respondent no.3 had two sons, namely, Sandeep Khalkho and Chaman Khalkho and out of them, the second son Chaman Khalkho had pre-deceased his father leaving behind his widow, namely, Bishun Khalkho. The description of the said heirs/legal representatives of the deceased respondent no.3 has been given in paragraph no.3 of the present interlocutory application. Hence, the said heirs/legal representatives of the deceased respondent no.3 may be permitted to be substituted in his place. 6. The description of the said heirs/legal representatives of the deceased respondent no.3 has been given in paragraph no.3 of the present interlocutory application. Hence, the said heirs/legal representatives of the deceased respondent no.3 may be permitted to be substituted in his place. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and for the reasons stated in the present interlocutory application, let the deceased respondent no.3 be substituted with his heirs/legal representatives whose descriptions have been given in paragraph no.3 of the present interlocutory application. 7. Necessary substitution in the cause title of the writ petition be made by the counsel for the petitioners in course of the day. 8. I.A. No.5309 of 2021 stands disposed of. I.A. No. 9128 of 2022: 9. The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for substitution of the respondent no.6, namely, Laxman Oraon @ Laxman Khalkho who has died during pendency of the writ petition. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent no.6 had died on 21 st February, 2012 that is prior to filing of the writ petition. The petitioners came to know about the death of the respondent no.6 through I.A. No.8513 of 2022 filed on behalf of the legal representative of the respondent no.6 on 13 th September, 2022. It is further submitted that the deceased respondent no.6 has left behind his son, namely, Deepak Khalkho as his heir/legal representative whose description has been given in paragraph no.4 of the present interlocutory application. Hence, the said heir/legal representative of the deceased respondent no.6 may be permitted to be substituted in his place. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and for the reasons stated in the present interlocutory application, let the deceased respondent no.6 be substituted with his heir/legal representative whose description has been given in paragraph no.4 of the present interlocutory application. 12. Necessary substitution in the cause title of the writ petition be made by the counsel for the petitioners in course of the day. 13. I.A. No.9128 of 2022 stands disposed of. I.A. No. 10266 of 2022: 14. The present interlocutory application was filed on behalf of the original respondent no.5 on 10 th November, 2022 for directing the parties to maintain status quo over the land in question. 15. 13. I.A. No.9128 of 2022 stands disposed of. I.A. No. 10266 of 2022: 14. The present interlocutory application was filed on behalf of the original respondent no.5 on 10 th November, 2022 for directing the parties to maintain status quo over the land in question. 15. Learned counsel for the applicants/original respondent nos.2 to 6 submits that keeping in view that there is already an interim order dated 1 st February, 2016 passed by a Bench of this Court directing the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the land in question, he does not want to press the present interlocutory application. 16. Accordingly, I.A. No.10266 of 2022 is dismissed as not pressed. W.P. (C) No. 6230 of 2015 17. Mr. Neil Abhijit Toppo, learned A.C. to G.A.-V appearing on behalf of the respondent-State is directed to communicate this order to the Officer-in-Charge of Mandar Police Station for necessary compliance. 18. Issue notice to the newly impleaded respondents nos.3(i)and 3(ii) and respondent nos.6 through ordinary process for which requisites etc. must be filed within a period of one week. 19. Put up this case under heading after six weeks.