Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 32414 (JHR)

SIRAJ ANSARI v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

WPC/7104/2025 · 2025-12-11

Rajesh Kumar

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:JHHC:37192 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.7104 of 2025 .... Siraj Ansari, aged about 56 years, Son of Janki Miya, Resident of Village-Beko, P.O. & P.S.-Bagodar, Dist.-Giridih .… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, P.O. & P.S.-Giridih, Dist.-Giridih 3. The Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bagodar-Siriya, P.O. & P.S.-Bagodar, Dist.-Giridih 4. The Circle Officer, Bagodar, P.O. & P.S.-Bagodar, Dist.-Giridih 5. Ajmal Ansari, Son of Sadik Ansari 6. Halima Khatoon, Wife of Late Kalim Ansari, Both resident of Village-Beko, P.O. & P.S.-Bagodar, Dist.-Giridih 7. Meraj Ansari, Son of Janki Miya, R/o Village-Beko, P.O. + P.S. Bagodar, District- Giridih 8. Sahamad Ansari, S/o Sadiki Miya, R/o Village- Beko, P.O. + P.S. Bagodar, District- Giridih 9. Ahmad Ansari, S/o Sadiki Miya, R/o Village- Beko, P.O. + P.S. Bagodar, District- Giridih Sons of Late Sadiki Miya, resident of Village-Beko, P.O. & P.S.-Bagodar, Dist.- Giridih .... Respondents .... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Adv. For the State : Mr. Zaid Imam, AC to SC-VII .... 02/11.12.2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief:- “For quashing of order dated 21.02.2025 passed by the respondent no. 3 in M.P. Case No. 07/2024 in connection with proceeding U/s 144 Cr.P.C. whereby and whereunder the land of the petitioner has been held as deemed Gair Majurwa and directed respondent no. to 4 open an encroachment case to dispossess the petitioner.” 2. The impugned order passed under Section 144 Cr.P.C. dated 21.02.2025 is effective only for sixty days. 3. Since the statutory period has already lapsed, hence, no lis survives. 4. Since the impugned order is no more effective, hence this Court finds no reason to entertain the present writ petition. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. 5. However, the parties are at liberty to work out their further remedy in accordance with law. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) 11.12.2025 Shahid/ Uploaded on 12.12.2025