THE STATE OF JHARKHAND, REPRESENTED THROUGH SECRETARY, LAND AND REVENUE, GOVT. OF JHARKHAND vs LAL JAY KUMAR NATH SHAHDEO Advocate - MAHESH TEWARI — LPA/374/2025
Next hearing: 27th April 2026.
CNR: JHHC010224732025
Filing Number
LPA/7305/2025
Filing Date
07-Jul-2025
Registration No
LPA/374/2025
Registration Date
16-Jul-2025
Judge
Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Mr.justice Rajesh Shankar
Coram
Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Mr.justice Rajesh Shankar
Bench Type
Division Bench
Category
CIVIL PROCEDURE & LIMITATION ( 113 )
Sub-Category
Clause 10 Of Letters Patent ( 24 )
Judicial Branch
Civil Section
Last updated 26-Mar-2026
Petitioner(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF JHARKHAND, REPRESENTED THROUGH SECRETARY, LAND AND REVENUE, GOVT. OF JHARKHAND
Adv. ADITYA RAMAN,MANOJ KUMAR,MANOJ KUMAR, ,MANOJ KUMAR
-
2.THE COMMISSIONER, SOUTH CHHOTANAGPUR DIVISION, RANCHI
-
3.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RANCHI
-
4.THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, RANCHI
-
5.THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RANCHI
-
6.THE CIRCLE OFFICER, NAGRI CIRCLE
Respondent(s)
-
1.LAL JAY KUMAR NATH SHAHDEO Advocate - MAHESH TEWARI
-
2.RAM KRISHNA NATH SHAHDEO
Case History
-
27-Apr-2026
Next hearingPending
-
27-Apr-2026
Admission
Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Mr.justice Rajesh Shankar
-
23-Mar-2026
Hon'ble The Chief Justice,hon'ble Mr.justice Rajesh ShankarView PDF
Case Summary: LPA/374/2025 Court: High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Date: 23.03.2026 Outcome: The Interlocutory Application seeking condonation of 347 days' delay in filing the appeal was allowed. The State of Jharkhand must pay Rs. 10,000 as costs to the Advocates' Association Welfare & Development Fund within four weeks. If costs are paid within the stipulated period, the main appeal will be listed for admission on 27.04.2026. The court found the State's explanation for delay—that it believed Supreme Court orders on the same property would supersede the Single Judge's order—to be made in good faith and not part of a dilatory strategy, thus warranting condonation of delay with costs imposed to compensate the respondents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
23-Mar-2026
Orders
Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Mr.justice Rajesh Shankar
-
04-Feb-2026
Orders
Hon'ble The Chief Justice (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) , Hon'ble Mr.justice Rajesh Shankar
-
20-Dec-2025
Orders
Hon'ble The Chief Justice (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan
-
06-Dec-2025
Orders
Hon'ble The Chief Justice (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) , Hon'ble Mr.justice Rajesh Shankar
-
19-Nov-2025
Orders
Hon'ble The Chief Justice (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) , Hon'ble Mr.justice Rajesh Shankar
-
15-Oct-2025
Hon'ble The Chief Justice (Tarlok Singh Chauhan),HON'BLE Mr.justice Rajesh ShankarView PDF
-
15-Oct-2025
Orders
Hon'ble The Chief Justice (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) , Hon'ble Mr.justice Rajesh Shankar
-
08-Sep-2025
Orders
Hon'ble The Chief Justice (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) , Hon'ble Mr.justice Rajesh Shankar
-
25-Aug-2025
Hon'ble The Chief Justice (Tarlok Singh Chauhan),HON'BLE Mr.justice Rajesh ShankarView PDF
-
25-Aug-2025
Orders
Hon'ble The Chief Justice (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) , Hon'ble Mr.justice Sujit Narayan Prasad
-
28-Jul-2025
Hon'ble The Chief Justice (Tarlok Singh Chauhan),HON'BLE Mr.justice Sujit Narayan PrasadView PDF
-
28-Jul-2025
Orders
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad (As Acj) , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar
-
22-Jul-2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad (As Acj),hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh KumarView PDF
-
22-Jul-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
07-Jul-2025
Case filed
Registration No. LPA/374/2025
Case Summary: LPA/374/2025 Court: High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Date: 23.03.2026 Outcome: The Interlocutory Application seeking condonation of 347 days' delay in filing the appeal was allowed. The State of Jharkhand must pay Rs. 10,000 as costs to the Advocates' Association Welfare & Development Fund within four weeks. If costs are paid within the stipulated period, the main appeal will be listed for admission on 27.04.2026. The court found the State's explanation for delay—that it believed Supreme Court orders on the same property would supersede the Single Judge's order—to be made in good faith and not part of a dilatory strategy, thus warranting condonation of delay with costs imposed to compensate the respondents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts