Jharkhand High Court
Shanti Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 March, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 107 of 2023
1. Shanti Devi, aged about 68 years, W/o Late Govind Ray
2. Ranjit Ray, aged about 34 years
3. Sanjit Ray, aged about 27 years
4. Sintu Ray, aged about 25 years
5. Tuntun Ray, aged about 23 years, All sons of Late Govind Ray
6. Manju Devi @ Anju Devi, aged about 52 years, D/o Govind Ray
7. Chinta Devi, aged about 56 years, w/o Late Budhan Ray
8. Prakash Ray, aged about 36 years, son of late Budhan Ray. All
resident of village-Charkatade, P.O.- Mahadeogarh, P.S. Poraya,
District-Godda ( Jharkhand)
... .. ... ... Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, P.O. &
P.S.-Dumka, District- Dumka
3. The Settlement Officer, Santhalpargana, Dumka, P.O. & P.S.-
Dumka, District-Dumka
4. 16 Annas Raiyat of Mouza Kordiha, P.O. Kordiha, P.S. Jarmundi,
District- Dumka
5. Kashinath Jha, son of Late Binod Jha
6. Madhumala Devi, wife of Kashinath Jha
7. Lalan Kumar Jha, son of Kashi Nath Jha
8. Sushil Kumar Jha, son of Kashi Nath Jha,
9. Sanjay Kumar Jha, son of Kashinath Jha, All resident of Village-
Corediha, P.O.- Petsar, P.S.- Jarmundi, District- Dumka
10. Rita Devi, wife of Rama Nand Tiwary, resident of Village-
Chattar, P.O. & P.S.- Chatar, District- Banka ( Bihar)
11. Ranju Devi, wife of Mahesh Pandey, resident of Village-
Sanoshor, P.O. & P.S.- Sanoshar, District- Bhagalpur ( Bihar)
12. Babita Devi, wife of Gopal Pandey, resident of Badampur, P.O.
& P.S.- Badampur, District- Bhagalpur ( Bihar)
... ... ... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Appellants : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate
Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shahi, Advocate
For the Res-5-12: Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
---------
06/Dated: 03.03.2025
1. Heard both sides.
2. This application is filed seeking condonation of delay of 337
days in filing the instant Letters Patent Appeal challenging the
judgment dt. 9.2.2022 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No.
2316 of 2004.
3. There was a dispute between the 5th respondent and the
petitioner and others which was the subject matter of the writ petition
and the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the
5th respondent and others, but while doing so, the learned Single
Judge granted liberty to the parties to approach the court of law but in
the meantime directed that till such adjudication is done, the same
land will remain with the State Government.
4. Counsel for the appellants states that though the appellant who
was the 4th respondent before the learned Single Judge, was happy
that the writ petition was dismissed, this observation of the learned
Single Judge handing over the land to the possession of the State till
the final disposal of the civil suit to be filed by the parties, cannot be
sustained, since it is contrary to law and violates Article 300(A) of the
Constitution of India.
5. Though, day to day delay in filing the appeal is not explained in
the application, but since the appellant is a senior citizen and since
there is a serious issue to be considered in the L.P.A., on payment of
cost of Rs. 500/- each to the counsel for the respondents within four
weeks, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
6. I.A. No. 2111 of 2024 is allowed.
7. List on 05.05.2025
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
Sharda/MM
Cp-02 (Deepak Roshan, J.)
