DILIP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the original petitioner was the widow of the owner of the property, in question, which was given on rent to the State Government. Initially, rent were paying to them at the lesser amount. Subsequently, an application was preferred for enhancement of the rent, wherein, the original petitioner succeeds and the rent was enhanced, but, unfortunately appeals bearing Appeal Nos. 8 of 200001 and 10 of 200001 were preferred by the brother of the husband of the original petitioner (Late Manorama Devi Gupta), which is pending before the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka. Meanwhile, husband of the original petitioner expired and the original petitioner was entitled to receive the rent from the respondents. By passage of time, even widow expired and now sons and daughter of the original petitioner are contesting this contempt case. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the appeals have been preferred by the brother of the husband of the original petitioner and, therefore, let a suitable direction be given to dispose of the said appeals within stipulated time and the matter may be adjourned for that period.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the respondentState, who has submitted that whenever there is a dispute about the ownership of the property and when another person is also claiming rent, then it is highly unsafe for the Government to pay rent to the present petitioners because if the present petitioners are losing appeals bearing Appeal Nos. 8 of 200001 and 10 of 200001, the Government may not be in a position to recover the money.

(3.) THE matter is adjourned to be listed on 6th June, 2011.