High CourtsSingle Bench(2019) 12 JH CK 0098

Vishnu Narain Dutta Singh & Others @Hash State Of Jharkhand & Others

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 6 December 2019

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 961 Of 2013

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

26 paragraphs · 494 words

I.A. No. 4861 of 2019

Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, at the outset has submitted that before entering into the merit of the

issue, appropriate order may be passed in the interlocutory application being I.A. No. 4861 of 2019.

Submission has been made that although the original prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of the direction upon the respondents to exercise the

power under the Indian Registration Act by making registration of the sale deed pertaining to the land under Town Plot No. 942A (Settlement Plot No.

182, J.B. No.1) at present Basouri J.B. No. 10/2858 situated at mouza Hathgarh, Revenue Thana No.411 within P.S. Kunda, District Deoghar

comprising of an area of 1.53 acres but during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent authorities have come out with a circular to present

before the registering authority the Land Possession Certificate for which an application was filed by the petitioners but the same has been rejected

vide decision dated 08.01.2018 by the District Level Committee and, therefore, the same may be allowed to be incorporated by treating the same as

part of the writ petition as because so long as the same order would not be quashed, the original prayer made in the writ petition would not be

considered.

He further submits that vide order dated 26.08.2019, this Court had directed the respondent State to file objection, if any, to the said interlocutory

application but as yet, no such affidavit has been filed.

Mr. Anil Kumar, A.C. to S.C.(Mines)-II, appearing for the respondent State, has submitted in all fairness that the said amendment petition may be

allowed for proper adjudication of the issues as also to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings.

This Court, after having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the reasons assigned in the interlocutory application as also by going

across the original prayer made in the writ petition, is of the view that so long as the decision of the District Level Committee dated 08.01.2018 is in

operation, no direction can be passed by this Court either ways by directing the authority for registration of the sale deed.

In view of such fact as also the fact that if such prayer as has been made in the interlocutory application would be allowed, the nature and character

of the relief sought for in the writ petition will not be changed, rather, if it will not be allowed, it will lead to multiplicity of the proceedings, this

interlocutory application being I.A. No. 4861 of 2019 is allowed.

I.A. No. 4861 of 2019 stands disposed of.

Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to file amended copy of the writ petition within a week by serving a copy of the same upon the learned

counsel appearing for the respondent State.

Learned counsel for the State is directed to file consolidated counter affidavit within a period of three weeks.

List this case after three weeks.