Jharkhand High Court
Morias Infrastructure Private Limited vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief … on 6 May, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:13688
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 1409 of 2024
---------
1. Morias Infrastructure Private Limited, through its Director
Ripunjay Prasad Singh, aged about 60 years, son of Late
Bhuneshwar Prasad Singh, having its branch office at 208,
Pustak Bhawan Complex, Court Road, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.-
Kotwali, District- Ranchi.
2. Kanodia Builders LLP, through its partner Tarun Kanodia, aged
about 27 years, son of Shiv Kumar Kanodia, having its office at
232, Udyog Bhawan, 2nd Floor, Sonawala Road, P.O. Goregaon
(East), P.S. Goregaon, District-Mumbai-400063 (Maharashtra).
3. Shiv Kumar Kanodia, aged about 62 years, son of Late
Kishanlal Kanodia, partner of Kanodia Builders LLP having its
registered office at 232, Udyog Bhwan, 2nd Floor, Sonawala
Road, P.O. Goregaon (East), P.S.- Goregaon, District- Mumbai-
400063 (Maharashtra). ......Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through The Chief Secretary,
Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and
P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi P.O.-Head P.O. near Ranchi
University, P.S.-Kotwali, District- Ranchi.
3. The Director General of Police (D.G.P.), Jharkhand at Dhurwa,
Ranchi, P.O. ad P.S.-Dhurwa, District- Ranchi.
4. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S.-
Lalpur, District- Ranchi.
5. Aadibasi Kalyan Samiti Gram Sabha Old Ranchi Mouza
Dumkudiya, Jatra Maidan, Purani Ranchi, P.O.- Kotwali, P.S.-
Kotwali, District- Ranchi through its President Atul Kumar
Kerketta, son of Late Dhiraj Kerketta, resident of Purani Ranchi,
P.O.- Kotwali, P.S.- Kotwali, District-Ranchi.
6. Md. Jamal, son of Late Sheikh Abdul Rehman, resident of
Purani Ranchi, P.O. Kotwali, P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi.
7. Sohrai Pahan, son of Late Bikha Pahan, resident of Akhara
Chowk, Pahan Kocha, P.O.- Kutcheri Chowk, P.S.- Kotwali,
District-Ranchi. …..Respondents
———
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
———
For the Petitioners : M/s. Indrajit Sinha, Kaushik Sarkhel, Advs.
Mr. Riday Mukherjee, Adv
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III
For the Resp. No.6 : Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Adv.
1
2025:JHHC:13688
For the Res. Nos. 5&7 : Mr. Prashant Kumar Srivastava, Adv
Mr. Bhanu Pratap, Adv
———
C.A.V. ON:- 07.03.2025 PRONOUNCED ON:-06/05/2025
1. The instant writ application has been preferred by the
petitioners praying therein for the following reliefs :-
(a) That Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents
No-1 to 4 to protect the landed property as mentioned in Para
5(i) of the petition from the respondent No- 5 & 7 who have been
trying to capture/grab the same forcefully in organized way
stating that the Revisional Survey record prepared in the year
1932 is wrong and they don’t accept the same and under such
circumstances they have damaged and can be said to be mob
lynching of the boundary wall of the petitioners erected over the
purchased land vide sale deed dated 04.06.2016 executed by
their vendor Md. Jamal having ‘Bakasht Malik’ land in the
name of Sita Ram Sahu and other i.e. non tribal.
(b) This Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to direct the
respondent No- 1 to 4 to calculate the damage caused by the
respondent No-5 for damaging /mob lynching the boundary
wall and recover the same from the respondent No-5 and pay to
the petitioners.
(c) This Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to direct the
respondent No- 1 to 4 to provide police protection to protect the
lives and land of the petitioners which must be guaranteed
under article 21 & 300A of the Constitution of India.
2. The brief facts as per the pleadings are that the
property in dispute i.e., Khata No. 189; Plot No. 573; Area 2.81
Acres, Mauza-Purani Ranchi was sold by Md. Jamal after having
lawfully inherited the same and running mutation in his name
since 2010 in favour of Petitioner no.2 vide a registered sale deed
dated 04.06.2016 where the Petitioner no.1 was a confirming
party. After the said purchase, the Petitioner no.1 & 2 came into
peaceful possession over the said land and got the same mutated
in their favour and are paying continuous rent and the Petitioners
also constructed a boundary wall over the said land which was
2025:JHHC:13688
demolished by the 5th & 7th Respondents by using criminal force
on 11.02.2024.
Thereafter, FIR being 56/2024 was lodged on 19.2.2024 and
even after lodging FIR, the said Respondents threaten for dire
consequence and therefore the present writ has been preferred by
the Petitioners for seeking protection for their life and property
under Article 21 and Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that after
the family settlement, Md. Jamal-the 6th Respondent filed a rent
fixation case No. 166/2007-08 for entry of his name. The Anchal
Adhikari vide order dated 29.12.2011 found the claim genuine
and recommended for fixation of rent to the L.R.D.C., Ranchi and
the L.R.D.C., Ranchi also found the claim legally, genuine and
affirmed the recommendation of the Anchal Adhikari, Ranchi and
allowed the same for opening of demand in the name of Md. Jamal
and he subsequently sold the aforesaid property to Petitioner no.2.
Thereafter, the 5th Respondent made a representation
against the Md. Jamal against the land in question before the
Joint Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms and the
Joint Secretary vide letter No.6/Jan Aawedar (Ranchi)43/2007-
3687(6)/(s) dated 17.07.2017 directed the Deputy Commissioner
to look into the matter. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi
directed the 5th Respondent twice to file appeal but they failed and
thereafter he directed the Additional Collector, Ranchi to institute
a Suo Moto appeal.
2025:JHHC:13688
A Suo Moto Appeal bearing Misc. Appeal Case No- 1/2017-
18 was instituted by the Additional Collector, Ranchi in which the
5th Respondent and the 6th Respondent participated in which the
Additional Collector asked the opinion of the learned Government
Pleader who opined in favour of the 6th Respondent i.e. Md. Jamal
vide opinion dated 19.11.2018 and thereafter; considering the
ground raised by both the parties disallowed the appeal on
29.11.2018.
Aggrieved thereof, the 5th Respondent filed a Revenue
Revision Case No. 1/2019 which is pending and the 5th
Respondent has not been pursuing the matter properly and still
the same is not admitted.
4. It has been further submitted that Petitioners after
assurance that the land is totally defect free constructed boundary
wall; however, the 5th Respondent and his associates had
demanded heavy amount in Crores which was refused and on
11.02.2024 at about 10:30 A.M. 5th Respondent along with 100-
150 miscreants damaged the entire boundary wall and took
C.C.T.V. Camera, rods etc.
5. He further submits that the 5th Respondent is involved
in land grabbing in organized way with organized force even where
there is no genuine claim of either society or to any individual
tribal and the 5th Respondent organized a meeting on 08.02.2024
and agenda was fixed for damaging the boundary wall and on
11.02.2024 the same was done which is apparent from Annexure
11.
2025:JHHC:13688
6. It has been further submitted that initially the Kotwali
police refused to lodge F.I.R. and then the Petitioner No-1 moved
to the S.S.P., Ranchi on 15.02.2024 and thereafter the Kotwali
P.S. Case No. 56/2024 was lodged U/s
143/149/341/323/379/427/385 of I.P.C.
7. He further submits that the 7th Respondent was also
involved in occurrence of 11.02.2024 who has been claiming over
the land as tribal land being the descendent of the cadastral
survey record of right i.e. old khatiyan. For this learned counsel
relied upon judgement of Dwarika Sonar vs Most. Bilguli & others
reported in 2003(2) JCR 134(Jhr) and submits that as per settle
principle of law that the new survey record of right prevails over
the old survey record of right.
8. It has been further submitted that even after lodging
FIR; the 5th Respondent and his associates threaten for dire
consequence and thereafter Petitioners represented to the S.S.P.
Ranchi on 29.02.2024 but no response has come from that side.
From First Information Report, till date the police is not taking
any steps and even the investigation is not complete. Having no
other alternative the petitioners knocked the doors of this Court
by filing this present writ petition seeking protection for their life
and property under Article 21 and Article 300A of the
Constitution.
9. It has been also submitted that the Petitioners have
purchased the land with payment of huge consideration and the
land is completely genuine viz. the land is a Bakasht land which is
2025:JHHC:13688
neither a tribal, nor a social or religious land and hence any kind
of threat over the same is completely violative of article 21 and
300A of the Constitution of India.
10. He lastly submits that the Petitioners have got
constitutional, legal and human right over the property as well as
lives and the State has to ensure the protection of the same from
any threat from the organized class of persons. For this he relied
upon judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in Hari Krishna Mandir
Trust vs. State of Maharashtra.1
11. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 and 7 fairly
submits that though they have not filed counter-affidavit, however
the claim of the petitioners are not maintainable.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that
land in question under dispute between the Petitioners and the 5th
& 7th Respondents. On the basis of the written information
submitted by the Informant Ripunjay Prasad Singh, Kotwali P.S.
Case No. 56/2024 dated 19.02.2024 has been registered under
section 143/149/341/379/427/385 of the Indian Penal Code
against the named accused persons as well as 100-150 unknown
accused persons as a mob has come from somewhere and
demolished the boundary wall.
Investigating officer started the investigation and recorded
the re-statement of the Informant and statement of other
witnesses. The Investigating Officer has issued notice under
1
2020 Scc online Sc 631
2025:JHHC:13688
section 41(A) Cr. P.C. to the named accused persons and some of
them have submitted their reply also. They have replied that the
land in question is their social/religious land and a mob has come
from somewhere and demolished the boundary wall, which they
don’t know. So far, land in question is concerned, they have stated
that it is “PAHANI” land and the case is pending in the Court of
Commissioner.
13. He further submits that the Investigating Officer has
written letter vide Memo No. 1543/23 dated 08.05.2024 to the
Circle Officer, Ranchi for providing the report in relation to the
ownership of the aforesaid land but the same has not been
received till date.
14. He further submits that that the Petitioner doesn’t
have any valid cause of action against Respondents to approach
before the Court and as such no relief should be granted to the
petitioner.
15. Learned counsel for the 6th Respondent submits that
he was having perfect right, title, interest and possession over the
aforesaid land as an absolute owner of the same. He
acknowledged the execution and registration deed of sale dated
04.06.2016 in favour of Petitioner no.2-Kanodia builder; however,
full consideration amount has not been paid for which he has also
instituted Original Suit No.424 of 2019 for cancellation of Deed of
sale dated 04.06.2016 and the same is sub-judice.
2025:JHHC:13688
16. He further submits that earlier one Swaraj Oraon had
preferred an application under Section 71A of CNT Act against the
answering Respondent before Special Officer, Schedule Area
Regulation, Ranchi seeking restoration of land in question which
was registered as SAR Case 75 of 1998-99; however, the same was
dismissed on contest vide order dated 14.08.1999 observing that
land in dispute does not belong to ‘Adiwasi Khata’ rather; the
same recorded as ‘Bakast Malik’ in the name of Sitaram Sahu and
Others. He lastly submits that against said Order dated
14.08.1999 passed in SAR Case 75 of 1998-99, no appeal/
revision has been preferred, as such same attains to its finality.
17. Having heard learned counsels for the rival parties and
after going through documents annexed with the respective
affidavits it appears that the property in dispute i.e., Khata No.
189; Plot No. 573; Area 2.81 Acres, Mauza-Purani Ranchi was sold
by Md. Jamal after having lawfully inherited the same and
running mutation in his name since 2010 in favour of Petitioner
no.2 vide a registered sale deed dated 04.06.2016 where the
Petitioner no.1 was a confirming party. After the said purchase,
the Petitioner no.1 & 2 came into peaceful possession over the
said land and got the same mutated in their favour and are paying
continuous rent.
It further transpires from the record that The Anchal
Adhikari vide order dated 29.12.2011 found the claim genuine
and recommended for fixation of rent to the L.R.D.C., Ranchi and
2025:JHHC:13688
the L.R.D.C., Ranchi also found the claim legally genuine and
affirmed the recommendation of the Anchal Adhikari, Ranchi and
allowed the same for opening of demand in the name of Md.
Jamal. Thereafter, the 5th Respondent made a representation
against the Md. Jamal against the land in question before the
Joint Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms and the
Joint Secretary vide letter No.6/Jan Aawedar (Ranchi)43/2007-
3687(6)/(s) dated 17.07.2017 directed the Deputy Commissioner
to look into the matter. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi
directed the 5th Respondent twice to file appeal but they failed and
thereafter he directed the Additional Collector, Ranchi to institute
a Suo Moto appeal.
A Suo Moto Appeal bearing Misc. Appeal Case No-
1/2017-18 was instituted by the Additional Collector, Ranchi in
which the 5th Respondent and the 6th Respondent participated in
which the Additional Collector asked the opinion of the learned
Government Pleader who opined in favour of the 6th Respondent
i.e. Md. Jamal vide opinion dated 19.11.2018 and thereafter after
considering the ground raised by both the parties disallowed the
appeal on 29.11.2018. Aggrieved thereof; the 5th Respondent filed
a Revenue Revision Case No. 1/2019 which is pending and further
he has not been pursuing the matter properly and still the same is
not admitted.
18. It further appears from the record that earlier one SAR
Case 75 of 1998-99 was preferred; however, the same was
2025:JHHC:13688
dismissed on contest vide order dated 14.08.1999 observing that
land in dispute does not belong to ‘Adiwasi Khata’ rather; the
same recorded as ‘Bakast Malik’ in the name of Sitaram Sahu and
Others and no appeal/ revision has been preferred, as such same
attains to its finality.
19. Thereafter, the Petitioners constructed a boundary wall
over the said land which was perhaps demolished by 5th & 7th
Respondent on 11.02.2024 and thereafter, FIR being 56/2024 was
lodged on 19.2.2024.
20. It also appears from the supplementary affidavit that
an enquiry was conducted by the Additional Collector Land
Reforms, Sadar, Ranchi regarding the land of Khata No-157, Plot
No-472 on application of one Lobin Hembrom, Member Legislative
Assembly, Jharkhand, Ranchi vide application dated 02.03.2024.
The entire revenue authorities viz. Anchal Amin, Town-Ranchi,
Revenue Sub Inspector, Town-Ranchi, Circle Inspector, Town-
Ranchi, Anchal Adhikari, Town-Ranchi, The Deputy Collector
Land Reforms, Ranchi participated in the enquiry and vide letter
No- 867 (II) dated 29.02.2024, a report was submitted that land
appertaining to Khata No-189, Plot No-573 measuring area 2.81
Acres was recorded in Khatiyan in the name of the Ex-landlord
Sita Ram Sahu and presently in Register-II, Page-22/43; it is
recorded in the name of Kannodia Builders LLP Director-Rekha
Khewat i.e. petitioner no.2 for area measuring 2.81 acres.
2025:JHHC:13688
On spot inspection it is found that a boundary wall
was constructed and the same has been broken and the said
report is annexed as Annexure 15 series. Thus, it is evident from
the aforesaid report that property in issue is recorded in the name
of Petitioner no.2 and some external elements are disturbing and
threatening the Petitioners to do any work and have also damaged
the Boundary Wall constructed by the Petitioner for which one
criminal case is also instituted and is in progress.
21. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held in Hari Krishna
Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra2 that the right to
property may not be a fundamental right any longer, but it is still
a constitutional right under Article 300-A and a human right and
no person can be deprived of its property except due process of
law and the High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue
a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus, but are duty-
bound to exercise such power where the Government or a public
authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised discretion
conferred upon it by a statute. For better appreciation relevant
para of aforesaid judgement are quoted herein below:
“96. The right to property may not be a fundamental right any longer,
but it is still a constitutional right under Article 300-A and a human
right as observed by this Court in VimlabenAjitbhai Patel v. Vatslaben
Ashokbhai Patel . In view of the mandate of Article 300-A of the
Constitution of India, no person is to be deprived of his property save
by the authority of law. The appellant Trust cannot be deprived of its
property save in accordance with law.
100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a writ of
mandamus or in the nature of mandamus, but are duty-bound to2
(2020) 9 SCC 356
2025:JHHC:13688exercise such power, where the Government or a public authority has
failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised discretion conferred upon it
by a statute, or a rule, or a policy decision of the Government or has
exercised such discretion mala fide, or on irrelevant consideration.
103. The Court is duty-bound to issue a writ of mandamus for
enforcement of a public duty. There can be no doubt that an important
requisite for issue of mandamus is that mandamus lies to enforce a
legal duty. This duty must be shown to exist towards the applicant. A
statutory duty must exist before it can be enforced through mandamus.
Unless a statutory duty or right can be read in the provision,
mandamus cannot be issued to enforce the same.”
22. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of this case and judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Hari Krishna Mandir Trust (supra) the instant writ application
is allowed and State Respondents are directed to protect the
landed property as mentioned in the Writ Petition from the any
anti-social elements and to provide police protection to protect the
lives and land of the Petitioners and sufficient police protection be
also provided to them at the time of erection of the boundary wall.
As a result, the instant Writ Petition stands disposed of in
the manner indicated hereinabove.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Amardeep../-
A . F . R.