SHIV LAL DAS ALIAS SUBI DAS And ORS v. STATE OF JHARKHAND And ORS.
WPC/2978/2008 · 2025-07-22
Anil Kumar Choudhary
Writ Petition (Civil)body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 3859 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 3859 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:JHHC:20084] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.2978 of 2008
------ 1.(a) Nirmala Devi wife of Late Shiv Lal Das (b) Rani Devi D/o Late Shiv Lal Das (c) Raghunandan Das son of Late Shiv Lal Das (d) Suresh Das s/o Late Shiv Lal Das All r/o Sukhjora Tola Bargachi P.O. Petsar, P.S. Jormunda Dist- Dumka
2. Ram Lal Das Both sons of late Colho Mahara
3. Gopal Das;
4. Uma Shankar Das; Both sons of late Kamal Das.
5. Amwati Devi; Wife of Badri Das. Petitioner No.1 to 5 residents of village- Sukhjora, Tola- Bargachi, P.O.- Pestar, P.S.- Jarmundi, District- Dumka.
… Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through Commissioner, Dumka Division, Dumka.
2. Charge Officer, Dumka.
3. Assistant Settlement Officer, Camp Nonihaat, District- Dumka.
… Respondents- 1st party
4. (a) Muniya Devi (wife) (b) Sita Ram Mistry (son) @ Sita Ram Sharma (c) Pappu Mistry (son) @ Pappu Sharma (d) Sangita Devi (Daughter) @ Rania Devi (e) Ful Kumari Devi D/o Late Nageshwar Maria
5. Bhaglu Maraiya; Both sons of Bahadur Maraiya.
6. Moti Maraiya; Son of Gauri Maraiya.
7. Chun Chun Maraiya Son of Gania Maraiya.
8. (a) Yasoda Devi w/o Late Umesh Maraiya (b) Gopal Mariya s/o Umesh Mariya (c) Hemanti Devi D/o Late Umesh Maraiya Son of late Thakur Maraiya.
9. Funsi Maraiya Daugher of late Colho Maraiya. Respondent No.4 to 9 residents of village- Sukjora, P.O.- Petsar, P.S.- Jarmundi, District- Dumka.
… Respondents- 2nd Party
------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : None For the State
: Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, GA V
Mr. A.R. Kisku, AC to GA V For the Resp. : Mr. Durga C. Mishra, Advocate
------
Order No:-18 Dated:-22-07-2025
No one turns up on behalf of the petitioner in spite of repeated calls.
Learned counsel appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the respondent submit that since there is no merit in this Writ Petition, hence, the petitioner is not diligent in prosecuting this Writ Petition.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Saroj/