KAMTA PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents for quashing the order dtd. 16/9/2021 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 4 - the Circle Officer, Govindpur, Dhanbad in Misc. Case No. 03/2021, whereby the said respondent has refused to issue rent receipt in favour of the petitioner for the land appertaining to Plot No. 1253, Khata No. 10, Mouza No. 129, Mouza-Jealgora, measuring an area of 05 Kattha. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 4 to issue rent receipt of the aforesaid land in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner earlier filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(C) No. 471 of 2020 for issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 4 to issue rent receipt in favour of the petitioner for the aforesaid land. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dtd. 10/8/2020 giving liberty to the petitioner to prefer a fresh representation along with the required documents before the respondent no. 4 and the said respondent, in turn, was directed to verify the relevant records and to take appropriate informed decision within a period of twelve weeks after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/his representative.

(3.) Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a representation before the respondent no. 4, however, the same has been rejected vide impugned order dtd. 16/9/2021 without any application of mind. On perusal of the said order, it would be evident that without cancelling the jamabandi of the said land earlier opened in the name of the petitioner, the respondent no. 4 has refused to accept the rent and issue rent receipts for the land in question. Reference of notification no. 1704/Ra. dtd. 15/7/2020 issued by the Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand is also irrelevant on the facts of the present case.