Anand Kumar Sharma & Others vs The State Of Jharkhand& Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1020 Jhar

                                      1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                        W. P. (C) No. 2625 of 2013

              Anand Kumar Sharma & Others              ...       ...      Petitioners
                                  Versus
            The State of Jharkhand& Others ...          ...        Respondents
                                  ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate : Ms. Niteshwari Kumari, Adv.

For the Respondents : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Prashant Kr. Rai, Advocate

---

26/01.03.2023

1. Learned counsel for the parties are present.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that one interlocutory application being I.A. No. 1409/2023 has been filed for stay of the notice published in newspaper. The learned counsel has also submitted that though the property involved in the present case was subject matter of acquisition in L.A. Case No. 9/2008-09 and the petitioners had purchased the property in the year 2011, but no objection was ever raised by the Circle Officer at the stage of mutation and mutation was already done in favour of the petitioners. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners have constructed a residential house over the property and the petitioners cannot be made to suffer on account of acts and omissions of the authorities who have mutated the land in favour of the petitioners, although the said land was subject-matter of acquisition.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the grievance of the petitioners in connection with enquiry etc. has been redressed in view of the fact that the disciplinary proceedings has already been instituted against the erring officer who has also filed one interlocutory application in this case seeking intervention and that intervention has been rejected vide order dated 24.01.2023.

4. The learned counsel submits that mere creation or non-creation of mutation does not create any right in favour of any person including the petitioners . He has also submitted that the property was already

acquired and therefore, the sale-deed executed after acquisition of the property does not given any right over the property to the petitioners. He submits that the law is well-settled that the seller cannot transfer a better title than what he possess .

5. The learned counsel has also referred to the clause of the sale deed which provides that in any case where there is a defect in title, the purchaser can sue the seller. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners has a remedy under law to sue the seller of the property whose title has been found to be defective as the seller has sold the property which has already acquired.

6. Being faced this situation, this Court is not inclined to allow the interlocutory application at this stage and is of the considered view that the case itself can be decided finally.

7. Upon this, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the matter be posted on 05.04.2023 for final disposal.

8. Post on 05.04.2023 under the heading for final disposal.

9. Learned counsel for the parties are directed to prepare short synopsis of arguments, list of dates and a copy of the judgment(s) on which they seek to rely upon much prior to the next date of hearing.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Mukul