RANCHI, India, June 6 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on May 6:
1. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioners praying therein for the following reliefs :-
(a) That Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents No-1 to 4 to protect the landed property as mentioned in Para 5(i) of the petition from the respondent No- 5 & 7 who have been trying to capture/grab the same forcefully in organized way stating that the Revisional Survey record prepared in the year 1932 is wrong and they don't accept the same and under such circumstances they have damaged and can be said to be mob lynching of the boundary wall of the petitioners erected over the purchased land vide sale deed dated 04.06.2016 executed by their vendor Md. Jamal having 'Bakasht Malik' land in the name of Sita Ram Sahu and other i.e. non tribal.
(b) This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct the respondent No- 1 to 4 to calculate the damage caused by the respondent No-5 for damaging /mob lynching the boundary wall and recover the same from the respondent No-5 and pay to the petitioners.
(c) This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct the respondent No- 1 to 4 to provide police protection to protect the lives and land of the petitioners which must be guaranteed under article 21 & 300A of the Constitution of India.
2. The brief facts as per the pleadings are that the property in dispute i.e., Khata No. 189; Plot No. 573; Area 2.81 Acres, Mauza-Purani Ranchi was sold by Md. Jamal after having lawfully inherited the same and running mutation in his name since 2010 in favour of Petitioner no.2 vide a registered sale deed dated 04.06.2016 where the Petitioner no.1 was a confirming party. After the said purchase, the Petitioner no.1 & 2 came into peaceful possession over the said land and got the same mutated in their favour and are paying continuous rent and the Petitioners also constructed a boundary wall over the said land which was demolished by the 5th & 7th Respondents by using criminal force on 11.02.2024.
Thereafter, FIR being 56/2024 was lodged on 19.2.2024 and even after lodging FIR, the said Respondents threaten for dire consequence and therefore the present writ has been preferred by the Petitioners for seeking protection for their life and property under Article 21 and Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that after the family settlement, Md. Jamal-the 6th Respondent filed a rent fixation case No. 166/2007-08 for entry of his name. The Anchal Adhikari vide order dated 29.12.2011 found the claim genuine and recommended for fixation of rent to the L.R.D.C., Ranchi and the L.R.D.C., Ranchi also found the claim legally, genuine and affirmed the recommendation of the Anchal Adhikari, Ranchi and allowed the same for opening of demand in the name of Md. Jamal and he subsequently sold the aforesaid property to Petitioner no.2.
Thereafter, the 5th Respondent made a representation against the Md. Jamal against the land in question before the Joint Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms and the Joint Secretary vide letter No.6/Jan Aawedar (Ranchi)43/2007- 3687(6)/(s) dated 17.07.2017 directed the Deputy Commissioner to look into the matter. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi directed the 5th Respondent twice to file appeal but they failed and thereafter he directed the Additional Collector, Ranchi to institute a Suo Moto appeal.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqPmbu77bZpH3VOGPnoU6yuqQme2Te53fKLBsMeCVI5Ff&caseno=WPC/1409/2024&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010090032024&state_code=7&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
