Mansoor Alam vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 6360 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Mansoor Alam vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 July, 2024

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              W.P. (C) No.3978 of 2021
                           -----

1. Mansoor Alam

2. Masud Alam

3. Saud Alam .......... Petitioners.

-Versus-

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Revenue Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reform, Ranchi.

3. Deputy Commissioner, Latehar.

4. Sub-Divisional Officer, Latehar.

5. The Circle Officer, Balumath, Latehar.

.......... Respondents.

-----

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

-----

For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Rashidi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Aditya Kumar, A.C. to Sr. S.C.I For Intervenor : Md. Razaullah Ansari, Advocate

-----

Order No.07 Date: 01.07.2024

1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of

direction upon the respondent nos.3 to 5 to consider the

petitioners' representation acknowledged on 10th January,

2020 in the office of the respondent no.3 for fixation of rent

and to issue rent receipt in terms with judgment and decree

drawn in Title Suit No.17 of 1992 dated 5th June, 1996. The

petitioners have further prayed for issuance of direction upon

the said respondents to fix rent and to issue rent receipt in

their favour with respect to the land mentioned at Schedule-A

of decree dated 18th June, 1996.

2. It has been averred in writ petition that the petitioners'

father- Sekhawat Ali filed Title Suit No.17 of 1992 in the

Court of Munsif, Latehar for fixation of rent and opening of

demand of land in question situated in the village Tasatbar, P.S. Balumath, District Palamau (at present District Latehar).

Judgment and decree were passed in the said title suit on 5th

June, 1996 and 18th June, 1996 respectively in favour of

Sekhawat Ali. In pursuance of preparation of the decree, the

petitioners' father- Sekhawat Ali requested the concerned

Circle Office for opening of demand of the said land in his

favour and acceptance of rent from him. However, the said

request was not responded and subsequently, Shekhawat Ali

died. After his demise, the petitioners continued to pursue

the said matter before the respondent no.5, however, the

same was not responded which compelled them to prefer the

present writ petition.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of

the view that if Title Suit No.17 of 1992 was decreed in

favour of the petitioners' father-Late Sekhawat Ali and the

said decree was not executed by the concerned State

respondents particularly respondent no.5, he (and

subsequently the petitioners) should have filed execution

case. Nothing has been stated in the writ petition that

pursuant to the preparation of the decree in the aforesaid

suit, any execution case was filed either by Late Shekhawat

Ali or by the petitioners. It, thus, appears that the present

writ petition has been filed seeking execution of the decree

prepared in Title Suit No.17 of 1992.

4. Under the said circumstance, this Court is not inclined to

entertain the aforesaid prayer of the petitioners under extra

ordinary writ jurisdiction.

5. Petitioners are, however, at liberty to take appropriate

recourse as permissible under law for redressal of their

grievance.

I.A. No.8268 of 2022:

6. The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf

of the petitioners seeking intervention in this case.

7. Since the writ petition itself has been dismissed, there is no

need to pass any order in the present interlocutory

application.

8. I.A. No.8268 of 2022 is disposed of.

(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Vikas/