Subhendu Narayan Choudhary @ Suvendu ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 1881 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Subhendu Narayan Choudhary @ Suvendu ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 January, 2025

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                 W.P.(C) No. 181 of 2025
            1. Subhendu Narayan Choudhary @ Suvendu Narayan Choudhary
            2. Budheshwar Choudhary
            3. Sharat Choudhary
            4. Subhas Choudhary                                           ..... Petitioners
                                           Versus
            1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, Ranchi
            2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Environment and Climate
            Change, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
            3. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (HOF), Department of Forest,
            Environment and Climate Change, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
            4. The Commissioner, Kolhan Division, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa
            5. The Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharsawan
            6. The Deputy Conservator of Forest-cum-Field Director, Elephant Project Wild
            Life Sanctuary, Dalma, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur
            7. The Range Forest Officer, Dalma Elephant Project, Dalma Wildlife Sanctuary,
            East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur                                    ..... Respondents
                                             -----

CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

-----

            For the Petitioners:       Mr. Prabhash Kumar
            For the Respondents:       Ms. Rishi Bharti, A.C to A.A.G-III
                                             -----


02/22.01.2025      The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction on the

concerned respondents not to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioners

over the land appertaining to Khata No. 30, Plot Nos. 1651, 1652, 1657 & 1658,

Village-Pardih Dimna, P.S-MGM Medical College, Town-Jamshedpur, District-East

Singhbhum, JNAC Ward No. 09, measuring an area of 0.77.50 Hectare, which is

the raiyati land of the petitioners as per the survey Khatiyan and the revenue

rent for the same is also being paid by them. Hence, the Department of Forest,

Environment and Climate Change, Government of Jharkhand has no right, title

and interest over the same.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a complaint case being

C-3 Case No. 186 of 2008 / T.R. No. 493 of 2008 was instituted by the

Department of Forest, Environment and Climate Change, Government of

Jharkhand against the father of the petitioner No.1-Arvind Choudhary under

Sections 33, 63, 66(A), 2(ii), (iv), 27, 29 of Indian Forest Act in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. However, the father of the

petitioner No.1 was acquitted in the said case vide judgment dated 25.06.2008

passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. Subsequently, an

encroachment proceeding initiated by the Department of Forest, Environment

and Climate Change, Government of Jharkhand also came to an end in terms

with the order dated 11.01.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner,

Jamshedpur in B.P.L.E. Appeal No. 16/2018-19 setting aside the order dated

30.11.2026 passed by the respondent No.6 in B.P.L.E. Case No. 19/2016.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that no such notice has

been issued to the petitioners by the competent authority of the Department of

Forest, Environment and Climate Change, Government of Jharkhand so as to

prefer the present writ petition.

4. On perusal of the record, it appears that no such notice issued by the

competent authority of the Department of Forest, Environment and Climate

Change, Government of Jharkhand has been annexed with the present writ

petition. Hence, this Court is of the view that the petitioners have no cause of

action to prefer the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed

as not maintainable.

5. The petitioners are however at liberty to take appropriate recourse as

permissible under law, if any such notice is issued to them in future.

Satish/-                                                          (RAJESH SHANKAR, J)