Jharkhand High Court
State Of Jharkhand vs Nasiruddin Ansari & Others on 8 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 393 of 2012
State of Jharkhand --- --- Appellant
Versus
Nasiruddin Ansari & others --- --- Respondents
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
Through Video Conferencing
For the Appellant : Mr. Sachin Kumar, A.A.G.-II
For the Respondent No.1 (b) : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
For the Intervener : Mr. Navneet Sahay, Advocate
36/08.03.2021 I.A. No. 9239 of 2018
The instant interlocutory application seeking grant of 4 weeks'
time on behalf of the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand stands
disposed of.
I.A. No. 3028 of 2018 and I.A. No. 9059 of 2018
Both the interlocutory applications have been filed by intervener
Jitendra Prasad and Sujit Prasad respectively seeking their impleadment
as party respondent. It is stated that applicants had purchased the suit
property from its original owner during the pendency of Misc. Appeal
No. 77 of 2004 arising out of judgment dated 26.02.2004 passed in Title
Suit No. 5181 of 2001. The said title suit was preferred by the State
challenging final publication of the name of the vendor of the applicants
in the record of rights. According to the applicants, their vendor has
disposed of the property in their favour during pendency of the misc.
appeal after seeking permission of the appellate court vide order dated
31.08.2007. It is stated that both the interveners were also added party
respondent in Misc. Appeal No. 77 of 2004.
Learned counsel for the appellant State Mr. Sachin Kumar, A.A.G-
II submits that these two applicants being transferee of the respondent
no.1 land looser have got compensation also as per the statement made
in the supplementary affidavit dated 07.11.2020.
Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
applicants and the response of the State, applications of the applicants
through the instant interlocutory applications are allowed. Let them be
impleaded as party respondent. Both the I.A.s are disposed of.
I.A. No. 5474 of 2019
Learned counsel for the appellant State submits that I.A. No
5474 of 2019 has become infructuous in view of the categorical prayer
made to that effect for substitution of respondent no.1, who died in 2007
in I.A. 4259 of 2020. Accordingly, instant I.A. stands disposed of as
such.
I.A. No. 4259 of 2020
Instant interlocutory application has been preferred for
substitution of the legal heirs of the deceased respondent no. 1 who has
died in 2007 leaving behind three sons named at para 3 of the I.A. and 4
daughters indicated at para 6 of the I.A. Learned counsel Mr. Indrajit
Sinha has already appeared for Rashid Ansari proposed respondent
no.1(b), legal heir of deceased respondent no.1 by filing vakalatnama.
However, let notices be issued upon the remaining proposed heir
indicated in the I.A. at para 3 and 6 i.e., 1(a), 1(c), 1(d),1(e), 1(f) and
1(g). Learned counsel for the appellant State undertakes to get service
effected upon the proposed legal heirs through the concerned Deputy
Commissioner, Dhanbad and Giridih. Requisites etc. must be filed within
two weeks. Office to issue draft of notice upon learned counsel for the
appellant within one week, thereafter. After effecting service of notice
upon the proposed legal heirs as above, an affidavit to that effect be also
filed 4 weeks, thereafter.
Learned counsel Mr. Navneet Sahay representing the newly added
respondents submits that as per his instruction, respondent no.3 has also
died during pendency of this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant
State submits that he would seek instruction in that regard for his
substitution.
I.A. No. 6045 of 2018
Instant interlocutory application has been preferred by the newly
added respondent seeking to bring on record certain documents.
This Court does not find any merit in the prayer made in the
instant application.
Accordingly, instant I.A. is dismissed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary)
A.Mohanty
