DR CHANDRA BHUSHAN VARMA v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY
W.P.(Cr.)/320/2021 · 2025-04-15
Sri Ananda Sen
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 24563 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 24563 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:JHHC:11411 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (Cr.) No. 320 of 2021
----- Dr. Chandra Bhushan Varma, S/o Prabha Shankar Varma, R/o 503, Sai Mansion, Ranga Reddy, P.O.- Lingampalli and P.S. Chandanagar District- Hyderabad, Telangana
.... Petitioner(s).
Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi 2.Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkahnd 3.Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Land Reforms and Registration, Government of Jharkhand 4.Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Jharkhand 5.Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi 6.The Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi 7.Ranchi Municipal Corporation through Municipal Commissioner, Kutchery Road, Ranchi 8.Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Ranchi, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.- Kotwali, Ranchi 9.The Station Incharge, Bariatu Police Station, Bariatu, Ranchi 10.Union of India through Central Bureau of Investigation, Ranchi 11.M/s Creative Developer, through its Director namely, Mr. Manoj Kumar
… Respondent(s).
------
CORAM :
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate. For the State
: Mr. Sanket Khana, AC to AAG-I
For the CBI
: Mr. Prashand Pallav, Spl. P.P. For the RMC
: Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, Advocate
Mr. Kabir, Advocate For the Resp No.11 : Ms. Rica Lal, Advocate
…......
10 / 15.04.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner in this writ petition, has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and take appropriate legal steps.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate mandamus commanding upon the Ranchi Municipal Corporation to act upon the representation of the petitioner and enquire into the same as to how and in what manner the map plan was sanctioned illegally. Further he prays to restore possession to him of the lands pertaining to plot No.216 Sub Plot No.216/B-3, Khata No.2, measuring an area 0.07 acres (7 decimal) Village- Bariatu, Ranchi
2025:JHHC:11411
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was working in Hyderabad and when he came to Ranchi, he saw that over his land appertaining to plot No.216, Sub-plot 216/B-3, Khata No.2, measuring an area 0.07 acres i.e. 7 decimals Village- Bariatu, a multistoried building has been constructed. It is the case that he has been illegally ousted and the plan of multistoried building was sanctioned without verifying the title of the petitioner and thus, the petitioner has been illegally dispossessed.
5.
Learned counsel for the respondents- Municipal Corporal submits that it is the father of this petitioner and brother who had given the power of attorney and thereafter the construction was made, which the petitioner opposes and submits that said power of attorney was not in respect of the land which belongs to the petitioner rather it is of the land which belong to the father and brother of the petitioner.
6. The fact remains that over the land a multistoried building has been constructed. The petitioner claims title of the said property and he claims that he has been dispossessed. He also claims that the Municipal Corporation has wrongly sanctioned the map with a mala-fide motive, illegally.
7. All these allegations cannot be adjudicated in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner has to establish his title or to get the same reaffirmed and thereafter, must claim repossession of the land. Further, petitioner has to pray for evicting the person who is occupying the land of the petitioner once the petitioner successfully ables to establish his title over the same. All these cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, that too in criminal jurisdiction.
8. The petitioner has to approach the Civil Court of appropriate jurisdiction claiming relief. This writ petition thus, cannot be entertain, the same is dismissed.
(ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S./