Umesh Yadav s/o late Sarjug Yadav vs State of Jharkhand

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Jhk) 598

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
Umesh Yadav s/o late Sarjug Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ram Lakhan Yadav
For the Respondent: Ashok Kumar, APP

ORDER :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

The petitioners are aggrieved of the order dated 02.09.2016 passed in Criminal Revision No.88 of 2015.

2. The petitioners were the opposite parties in the proceedings under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, CrPC) which was registered as Case No.102 of 2015.

3. By an order dated 13.05.2015 the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bagodar-Sariya (Giridih) has held that the stand taken by the opposite parties that the land in dispute belongs to their maternal ancestors has got substance. The learned Magistrate has also held that the documents filed by the opposite parties such as kewala and rent-receipt further substantiate their claim.

4. The petitioner challenged the order dated 13.05.2015 in Criminal Revision No.88 of 2015 which was allowed vide order dated 02.09.2016.

5. The learned revisional Court has held as under :

“5. In the instant case both the parties are claiming the land in proceeding and on perusal of impugned order dated 13/05/15, it appears that learned SDM has accepted the claim of second party and rejected the claim of first party. Since dispute between the parties relates to immovable property and to decide factum of p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

[No cases identified as bad law]

[No cases could be categorized into treatment patterns such as Followed, Distinguished, Criticized, Questioned, Overruled, Reversed, or Abrogated]

[List of all cases from the provided list, as none contain keywords or phrases indicating judicial treatment patterns (e.g., "followed," "distinguished," "overruled," "reversed"). The entries appear to be procedural references, citations, or mentions of counsel appearances rather than descriptions of how prior cases were treated. Explanations for each:]

Manohar s/o Shankarlal Patidar VS Gokul S/O Panna Bheel - 2023 0 Supreme(MP) 967: State of U. P. ... State of U. P.

Treatment unclear. Contains only a partial case name or citation with no treatment indicators. Appears to be a reference to a case involving the State of U.P., but no subsequent judicial treatment language present.

Dippu Lal Bhaiya, Son of Damodar Lal Bhiaya vs State of Bihar - 2024 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 3755: Roy Saurabh Nath, learned Advocate for opposite party no.2 and learned APP for the State.

Treatment unclear. Mentions counsel appearances (advocate and Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State). No keywords related to case treatment; this is procedural, not analytical.

Pramila Kumari W/o Jai Nandan Kumar Singh VS State of Jharkhand - 2025 0 Supreme(Jhk) 7: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP appearing for the State.

Treatment unclear. Describes a hearing with counsel for petitioners and the State. Standard procedural notation with no treatment indicators.

Sheikh Anawarul @ Anwarul Haque VS State of Bihar - 2025 0 Supreme(Pat) 185: Aditya Narayan Singh-1, learned APP for the State and Mr.

Treatment unclear. Incomplete reference to counsel (learned APP and "Mr."). No treatment keywords; procedural in nature.

Syed Raza Abbas vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. - 2025 0 Supreme(All) 2926: Rajesh Kumar Singh the learned AGA-I for the State. ... State of U.P. :

Treatment unclear. References counsel (learned AGA for the State) and a partial case name. No indicators of how any case was treated judicially.

2021 Supreme(Jhk) 598

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHARUmesh Yadav s/o late Sarjug Yadav – AppellantVersusState of Jharkhand – Respondent

Judicial Analysis

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
Umesh Yadav s/o late Sarjug Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent