Murali Manohar Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 377 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Murali Manohar Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief ... on 3 June, 2025

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                       W.P.(C) No. 2657 of 2025
                                    ---

Murali Manohar Prasad, aged about 49 years, son of Late Raghuraj Saw, resident of village Chhatarpur, P.O. Chhatarpur, P.S. Chhatarpur, District Palamau, Jharkhand .........Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary. having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.

2. Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Dhurwa, having its office at Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur District Ranchi, Jharkhand.

3. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, having its office at Medininagar, P.O. Medininagar P.S. Medininagar, District Palamau, Jharkhand.

4. The Additional Collector, Palamau, having its office at Medininagar, P.O. Medininagar P.S. Medininagar, District Palamau, Jharkhand.

5. The Circle Officer, Chhattarpur, P.O. Chhattarpur, P.S. Chattarpur, District Palamau, Jharkhand.

.....Respondents

--

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

--

For the Petitioner : Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Prabhat Kumar, S.C.-II

--

02/03.06.2025 The grievance of the petitioner is that without any notice the land of the petitioner has been incorporated under the prohibited list of the Government.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a judgment passed in W.P.(C) No. 847 of 2023 (Brinda Devi Agarwal Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.), wherein this Court has already held that putting the land under prohibited list without giving notice to the affected parties is bad in law and this action of the respondents of putting the land of the petitioner under prohibited list is giving strong threat on dispossession of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that today is the first day of hearing and he seeks time to file counter affidavit. Accordingly, the State counsel is directed to file counter affidavit within a period of 6 weeks.

4. Looking to the prayer and the averments made in this writ application, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land which he possesses, during pendency of the instant writ application.

5. List this case on 22.07.2025.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) jk