(2025:JHHC:10040) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No.563 of 2025 ----- Bikash Kumar Gorain, S/o Kanchan Gorain, R/o Village- Rasikpur, P.O. & P.S.-Dumka, District-Dumka. .......... Petitioner. -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumka. 4. The Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Dumka. 5. Dilip Gorain, S/o Late Sanatan Gorain 6. Barun Gorain, S/o Late Sanatan Gorain 7. Tarun Gorain, S/o Late Sanatan Gorain 8. Ashok Gorain, S/o Dhirendra Nath Gorain 9. Alok Gorain, S/o Dhirendra Nath Gorain 10. Jyotsna Gorain, W/o Late Kishore Gorain 11. Raja Gorain, S/o Late Kishore Gorain 12. Pintu Gorain, S/o Late Kishore Gorain Sl. Nos.5 to 12 are R/o Village-Rasikpur, P.O. & P.S.- Dumka, District-Dumka. .......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Durga C. Mishra, Advocate For Res. Nos.1 to 4 : Ms. Surabhi, AC to AAG-II ----- Order No.07 Date: 02.04.2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the State-respondents to restrain the private respondents from making any illegal construction over the petitioner’s land appertaining to Plot No.889 (McPherson), Ward No.2 beside old Durga Mandir, Mouza-Rasikpur till final disposal of the writ petition. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondents to dispose of the representations dated 5th February, 2024 and 6th February, 2024 filed by the petitioner. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.4. (2025:JHHC:10040) 3. Ms. Surabhi, learned A.C. to A.A.G.-II, while referring to paragraph no.11 of the said counter affidavit, submits that on receipt of the petitioner’s application dated 2nd March, 2024, the respondent no.4 got an inquiry conducted through Amin and issued notices to the respondent nos.5 to 8 as well as Smt. Jotsna Bala Dasi-mother of the said respondents on 4th March, 2024 so as to take appropriate action in that regard. However, subsequently neither the petitioner nor the respondent nos.5 to 8 as well as Smt. Jotsna Bala Dasi appeared before the respondent no.4 due to which no formal proceeding could be initiated by the said respondent. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent nos.1 to 4, this Court is of the view that after receipt of petitioner’s application raising objection against construction of a building over the land in question by the respondent nos.5 to 7, the respondent no.4 was required to register a case and thereafter to proceed in accordance with law. 5. Since the respondent no.4 himself has stated in the counter affidavit that no formal case has been instituted in this regard, the said respondent is directed to institute a case and thereafter to proceed in accordance with law. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid direction. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Vikas/ -2- W.P. (C) No.563 of 2025