IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

L.P.A. No. 97 of 2015

Birsa Oraon son of Late Bhudhuwa Oraon, resident of village, P.O. & P.S. Bero,

District Ranchi.

…

Appellant

-versus-

1.

The State of Jharkhand

2.

The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms (D.C.L.R.) Ranchi, P.O. GPO, P.S.

Kotwali, District Ranchi.

3.

The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi (D.C.), P.O. GPO, P.S. Kotwali,

District Ranchi.

4.

The Block Development Officer (B.D.O.), Bero, P.O. & P.S. Bero, District

Ranchi.

…

Respondents

---

CORAM :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH, CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.P. BHATT

---

For the Appellant :

Mr. Ahalya Mahato, Advocate

For the Respondents : Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, G.P.IV

----

06/Dated 7

^th December, 2015

Per Virender Singh, C.J.

Admittedly, the appellant-writ petitioner filed the writ petition

bearing W.P.(C) No. 3829 of 2013 after moving an application under Section

71-A of the Chota Nagpur Tenency Act for restoration of land in dispute through

the medium of S.A.R. Case No.17/07-08 in which notices were also issued to

the respondents. Learned Writ Court, while taking that aspect into consideration

coupled with the fact that the structure on the disputed land were built in 1962

and that the appellant-writ petitioner had preferred the aforesaid S.A.R. after

long 45 years, dismissed the aforesaid writ petition, aggrieved thereof, he has

knocked the door of this Court through the medium of the instant LPA in which

Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo appears on behalf of the respondents-State and placed on

record a document which is prepared somewhere in June, 2009, a reference

therein is to certain entries made somewhere in the year 1955-56.

2.

Learned State counsel submits that the property in dispute is in the

name of the Health Department and that the appellant-writ petitioner has no

right over it, as such, he cannot ask for restoration of the said land on the

strength of Section 71-A of the Chota Nagpur Tenency Act.

-: 2 :-

3.

Learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner states that since

the entry made in favour of the State annexed with the counter affidavit filed in

the instant memo of appeal, was never brought to the notice of the Court during

the pendency of the writ petition and even during the proceeding pending in the

aforesaid S.A.R. Case, he may be allowed to withdraw the instant appeal

enabling the appellant-writ petitioner to question the said entry in accordance

with law before the appropriate forum.

4.

We accede to the request of the learned counsel for the appellant-

writ petitioner. The instant appeal stands disposed of as withdrawn with the

aforesaid liberty.

(Virender Singh, C.J.)

(P.P. Bhatt, J.)

Shamim/LAK