MS KAUSHAL KANCHAN CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR KAUSHAL KUMAR SINGH vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND And ORS. Advocate - A.A.G. -1, ,NAGENDRA PATHAK,VAISHNAVI KAUSHIK,PARTH S. A. SWAROOP PATI,VIKASH KISHORE PRASAD,MADHU SUDAN MITTAL,VIKASH KISHORE PRASAD,MADHU SUDAN MITTAL,MADHU SUDAN MITTAL,MADHU SUDAN MITTAL,VIKASH KISHORE PRASAD,VIKASH KISHORE PRASAD — WPC/6887/2013

Disposed: --Dismissed on 05th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 01-Oct-2015

CNR: JHHC010101482013

Filing Number

WPC/30616/2013

Filing Date

12-Nov-2013

Registration No

WPC/6887/2013

Registration Date

13-Nov-2013

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

RENT CONTROL ( 167 )

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

05-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--Dismissed

Last updated 04-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MS KAUSHAL KANCHAN CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR KAUSHAL KUMAR SINGH

    Adv. SHANKAR LAL AGARWAL,ABHIJEET KR SINGH,ABHIJEET KR SINGH, ,ABHIJEET KR SINGH,ABHIJEET KR SINGH,ABHIJEET KR SINGH,ABHIJEET KR SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF JHARKHAND And ORS. Advocate - A.A.G. -1, ,NAGENDRA PATHAK,VAISHNAVI KAUSHIK,PARTH S. A. SWAROOP PATI,VIKASH KISHORE PRASAD,MADHU SUDAN MITTAL,VIKASH KISHORE PRASAD,MADHU SUDAN MITTAL,MADHU SUDAN MITTAL,MADHU SUDAN MITTAL,VIKASH KISHORE PRASAD,VIKASH KISHORE PRASAD

  2. 2.The Principal Secretary

  3. 3.The Deputy Secretary

  4. 4.The Commissioner

  5. 5.The Deputy Commissioner

  6. 6.Tata Steel Ltd

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 05-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar DwivediView PDF

    Case Summary: WPC/6887/2013 Court Decision: The Jharkhand High Court dismissed both consolidated writ petitions filed by Kaushal Kanchan Construction Pvt Ltd and Rishiraj Homes Private Limited challenging land rent and road cess fixation by the State Government. Key Reasoning: The court held that the petitioners had already accepted the rent fixed by the Appropriate Machinery Committee, paid the amounts demanded, taken possession, and commenced activities on the land before challenging the authorities' authority to levy such charges. The court found this constituted disputed questions of fact inappropriate for writ jurisdiction. Additionally, since Tata Steel Limited is not a state entity under Article 12 of the Constitution, writs cannot lie against it. The court concluded that contractual rent disputes fall outside writ jurisdiction absent statutory violation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 05-May-2026

    Admission

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

  4. 28-Apr-2026

    Admission

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

  5. 21-Apr-2026

    Admission

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

  6. 07-Apr-2026

    Admission

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

  7. 22-Jul-2025

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar ChoudharyView PDF

  8. 03-Oct-2023

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh KumarView PDF

  9. 03-Oct-2023

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar

  10. 02-Aug-2023

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar

  11. 13-Jul-2023

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh KumarView PDF

  12. 13-Jul-2023

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar

  13. 15-Jun-2023

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar

  14. 03-May-2023

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh KumarView PDF

  15. 03-May-2023

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary

  16. 15-Mar-2023

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat ChoudharyView PDF

  17. 03-Apr-2019

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mr.justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay

  18. 27-Mar-2019

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mr.justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay

  19. 13-Mar-2019

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mr.justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay

  20. 04-Feb-2019

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary

  21. 13-Jul-2018

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat ChoudharyView PDF

  22. 13-Jul-2018

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary

  23. 21-Jun-2018

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary

  24. 21-May-2018

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary

  25. 18-May-2018

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary

  26. 17-May-2018

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary

  27. 16-May-2018

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary

  28. 15-May-2018

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary

  29. 14-May-2018

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary

  30. 08-May-2018

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary

  31. 07-May-2018

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary

  32. 04-May-2018

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary

  33. 03-May-2018

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary

  34. 18-Apr-2018

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat ChoudharyView PDF

  35. 18-Apr-2018

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary

  36. 02-Apr-2018

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary

  37. 26-Mar-2018

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary

  38. 21-Feb-2018

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  39. 21-Feb-2018

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.chandrashekhar

  40. 12-Nov-2013

    Case filed

    Registration No. WPC/6887/2013

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WPC/6887/2013 Court Decision: The Jharkhand High Court dismissed both consolidated writ petitions filed by Kaushal Kanchan Construction Pvt Ltd and Rishiraj Homes Private Limited challenging land rent and road cess fixation by the State Government. Key Reasoning: The court held that the petitioners had already accepted the rent fixed by the Appropriate Machinery Committee, paid the amounts demanded, taken possession, and commenced activities on the land before challenging the authorities' authority to levy such charges. The court found this constituted disputed questions of fact inappropriate for writ jurisdiction. Additionally, since Tata Steel Limited is not a state entity under Article 12 of the Constitution, writs cannot lie against it. The court concluded that contractual rent disputes fall outside writ jurisdiction absent statutory violation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case