logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 Jhar HC 123 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Jharkhand
Case No : W.P. (C.) No. 3173 of 2008
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Parties : Jemal Kisku @ Jimal Kisku & Others Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Anil Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Chandana Kumari, Prabhat Kumar Singh, Aniket Kumar Ojha, Advocates. For the Respondents: Vishal Kumar Rai, AC to GA-IV, Bhanu Pratap, AC to GA-IV, R5 to R11, D.C. Mishra, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 23-03-2026
Head Note :-
Comparative Citation:
2026 JHHC 8609,
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- None

2. Catch Words:
- Not mentioned

3. Summary:
The petition seeks to quash orders directing settlement of land in favour of private respondents, alleging that the recorded tenants Sido Kisku and Dhakhin Kisku died without issue and that the petitioners are their legal heirs. The petitioners failed to produce any documentary evidence establishing their inheritance rights. The State and private respondents contended that the lower courts correctly applied the survey settlement records and that there was no illegality in the orders. The Court examined the lack of proof of heirship and found the earlier findings sound. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed
Judgment :-

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State.

2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 31.03.2008 passed in RMA No. 95 of 1987-88 by respondent no. 2 and the order dated 10.04.1987 passed by respondent no. 3 in Fouti Case No. 69 of 1987 whereby the direction has been issued for settlement of land in favour of the private respondents with respect to the land of Jamabandi No. 22 of Mouza Bishunpur.

3. Mr. Aniket Kumar Ojha, A.C. to Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Senior counsel, submits that land of Jamabandi No. 22 of Mouza Bishunpur is jointly recorded in the name of Sido Kisku and Dhakhin Kisku who are the sons of Furlai Kisku in the last Survey Settlement Operation commonly known as Gentzer’s Settlement showing the aforesaid land given in the Jimanama of the then Pradhan Bagmat Hembrom. By referring para-5 of the writ petition, he submits that genealogy has been disclosed therein and in the light of said genealogy, he submits that the petitioners and the recorded tenants are descendants of the common ancestor Sham Manjhi.

4. He further submits that the Sido Kisku and Dhakhin Kisku died issueless leaving behind the present petitioners as the next nearest reversioners and legal heirs of the deceased recorded tenants. In this background, he submits that both the learned Courts have given the wrong findings and directed to record the name of the private respondent nos. 5 to 11. He submits that in view of this fact, the impugned order may kindly be set aside.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the State and private respondent nos. 5 to 11 jointly submits that both the learned courts have given concurrent findings regarding the issue in question and there is no illegality in the impugned orders, as such this writ petition may kindly be dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for the state further submits that in parcha of the last survey settlement it has come that in the Gentzer’s Survey Settlement Jamabandi No. 22 of Mouza Bishunpur stands recorded in the name of Sido Kisku and Dhakhin Kisku and it was shown in the Jimma of the then Village Pradhan Bagmat Hembrom as raiyat, who went to Assam for livelihood.

7. He further submits that the recorded tenants Sido Kisku and Dhakhin Kisku died issueless and hence, Fouti Case No. 69 of 1987 started for the land last settlement of Jamabandi No. 22 of Mouza Bishunpur, Thana No. 09, P.S. Sikharipara, District- Dumka during the present survey settlement by Assistant Settlement Officer Attestation Camp Shikaripara (North) that has been admitted by the authority concerned. He further submits that not even a single chit of paper brought on record to suggest that these petitioners are the legal heirs and successors of Sido Kisku and Dhakhin Kisku. These aspects of the matter have been rightly appreacited by both the learned courts. Thereafter, private respondents name has been directed to be recorded.

8. On query made by the court, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has not been able to demonstrates how the petitioners are legal heirs and successors of Sido Kisku and Dhakhin Kisku. Even in the writ petition no chit of paper has been annexed to that effect showing about inheritance right.

9. Considering all aspects of the matter, the learned courts have passed the order and this court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned orders, as such this writ petition is dismissed.

Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
 
  CDJLawJournal