IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(C) No. 158 of 2009

1 (a) Aditya Vikram Harlalka, son of late Jay Prakash Harlalka, R/o

HB- 249, Sector – 3, Salt Lake, P.O. and P.S. – Vidhan Nagar,

Kolkata

1 (b) Pallavi Kedia, W/o Anurag Kedia, D/o late Jay Prakash Harlalka,

R/o – CG – 130, Sector – 2, Salt Lake, Kolkata

…

…

Petitioners

Versus

1. State of Jharkhand

2. Deputy Secretary, Revenue & Land Reform Department, State of

Jharkhand, Ranchi

3. Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division, at Chaibasa, West

Singhbhum

4. Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, at Chaibasa

5. Additional Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, at Chaibasa

6. Town Khas Mahal Officer cum Land Reform Deputy Collector,

Sadar at Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum

…

… Respondents

---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioners

: None

For the Respondents

: Mr. Prashant Kumar Rai, A.C. to

S.C.(L&C) I

---

14/14.02.2023

Learned counsel for the petitioners is absent.

2.

Learned counsel for the respondents is present.

3.

This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:

“For an appropriate writ to call for the executive record in

relation to 8/2005-06 and thereafter quash the order dated

19.1.2007, whereby the Khas Mahal Lease granted in favour of

the petitioner over an area of 5.19 acres has been cancelled

and direction has been given to repossess the same. And

Further a writ directing the concerned respondents not to take

any coercive actions pursuant to the impugned letter dated

19.1.2007 and direct to maintain status quo in respect of the

land in question.

4.

During the course of the arguments, it transpired that the

petitioners have not been appearing in the present case for quite some

time and the records indicate that third party rights have already been

created over the property involved in the present case. The petitioners

have not made any third party as respondents in the present case.

2

5.

However, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted

that in order dated 06.06.2022, reference was made to M.A. No.631 of

2017 , wherein a direction was issued to the State government to

prepare the list of Khas Mahal land as the interest of the State was not

being protected by Khas Mahal officers. At that point of time, no such

report was submitted in M.A No.631 of 2017. Under such

circumstances, this Court had asked the Additional Chief Secretary,

Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department, Government of

Jharkhand to file an affidavit on the following points:

(i)

What step has been taken by the State authority for

protecting the khas mahal land?

(ii)

Why action has not been taken against those erring

officers with whose connivance the Government land has

been misappropriated and the rent receipt has also been

issued to the sub-lessee or subsequent purchaser?

6.

Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that

pursuant to order dated 06.06.2022, appropriate affidavit has been

filed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue, Registration and

Land Reforms, Govt. of Jharkhand. He has also submitted that M.A.

No.631 of 2017 has been disposed of vide order dated 03.01.2023. He

submits that in the said M.A, the entire details of Khas Mahal

Properties in connection with Ranchi district has been filed and so far

as other districts are concerned, the same has been brought on record

by another affidavit dated 29.07.2022. The learned counsel submits

that, on the one hand, the petitioners are not appearing in the present

case to pursue this matter and, on the other hand, the order passed by

this Court directing to give the details of khas mahal properties and

the follow up action has been duly complied and the affidavit has been

filed giving an undertaking before this Court to take appropriate

action. He has submitted t