Krishna Sao @ Krishna Sao Kair vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 9 October, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
          W.P. (C) No. 6477 of 2008

Krishna Sao @ Krishna Sao Kairo
@ Krishna Sahu                     ...           Petitioner
                    Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Circle Officer, Kuru, Lohardaga ...           Respondents

            .............

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.PATEL
………….

For the Petitioner Mr. Robin Kumar, Advocate

………….

06/ Dated: 9th of October, 2009

1. The present petition has been preferred mainly for
challenging the show-cause notice, given by the respondents to
the petitioner dated 24th September, 2008 (Annexure-3)
whereby the show-cause has been given by the Circle Officer,
Kuru, Lohardaga mainly for the reason, for removal of the
encroachment upon Plot no. 3457, Khata no. 320. Against
this show-cause notice, the present petition has been
preferred.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
looking to the circumstances, I see no reason to entertain this
writ petition mainly for the following facts and reasons:-

(i) It appears from the facts of the case that the present
petitioner is in occupation of Plot no. 3457 or part
thereof. It is alleged by the Circle Officer, Kuru,
Lohardaga that there is encroachment upon the said
land and, therefore, a show-cause notice has been given
to the petitioner. Neither any final decision has been
taken nor the petitioner has been removed from the said
property.

(ii) The said show-cause notice is dated 24th September,
2008. Nothing has happened thereafter. Even otherwise
also, no final decision has been taken on the said show-
cause notice.

(iii) It cannot be said from the said show-cause notice
that there is a total want of jurisdiction for issuance of
the show-cause notice. When this Court raised a query
to the learned counsel for the petitioner that whether the
petitioner is the owner of the property in question, he is
2

2.
unable to give any reply that how the petitioner is in
possession of the property in question neither the
ownership is proved or alleged with necessary
documents nor the petitioner is a lessee or a tenant
upon the said property.

3. In these set of circumstances, I am not inclined to
interfere with the show-cause notice, issued by the
respondents. There is no substance in this writ petition and,
hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed.

(D.N. Patel, J.)

Ajay/