Back
RAJESH SHANKAR
Kailash Pasad – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
ORDER :
1. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioners, the defects, as pointed out by the office, are ignored.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Public Land Encroachment Case No. 01 of 2022-23 initiated by the Circle Officer, Kuru (the respondent no. 6) as well as the notices issued to the petitioners by the said respondent initially under Section 3 and subsequently under Section 6(2) of the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (in short “the Act 1956”) whereby they have been directed to remove the alleged encroachment from the land in question.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that some of the lands appertaining to old plot no. 813(P) under old Khata No. 01 corresponding to new plot nos. 937 and 1001 under new Khata No. 422 of Mouza-Kuru were purchased by one Smt. Geeta Devi wife of Bijay Prasad Sahu whereas lands appertaining to old plot no. 813(P) corresponding to new plot nos. 942 and 1003 were purchased by one Smt. Rajeshwari Devi from one M/s. Chotanagpur General Trading Company Limited through its Director-Bhuramal Tibrewal vide registered sale deeds dated 21.01.1975. Moreover, other la
The availability of an efficacious remedy for the petitioners to prefer an appeal under Section 11 of the Act, 1956 and seek interim relief against the final order passed by the respondent no. 4.
The petitioner has an efficacious remedy of preferring appeal under Section 11 of the Act, 1956.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for due process and enquiry before making a decision under the Act, 1956, and the right of the petitioner to file objections/rep....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for procedural fairness and adherence to the prescribed procedure under the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Public Land Encroachment Act, ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of res judicata and the finality of dropped encroachment proceedings, which prevent the reinitiation of proceedings for the same land....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prescribed procedure under the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 must be followed before taking any coercive action....
The court affirmed that the petitioners failed to prove any right, title, or interest over the public land, validating the encroachment proceedings under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
