RAJENDRA PRASAD SAHU vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - SANJAY KUMAR TIWARI — WPC/3248/2026
Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 06th May 2026.
CNR: JHHC010427242025
Filing Number
WPC/14349/2025
Filing Date
09-Dec-2025
Registration No
WPC/3248/2026
Registration Date
30-Apr-2026
Judge
Sri Ananda Sen, J.
Coram
Sri Ananda Sen, J.
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
CIVIL PROCEDURE & LIMITATION ( 113 )
Sub-Category
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( 1 )
Judicial Branch
Civil Section
Decision Date
06-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Disposed Off
Last updated 22-May-2026
Petitioner(s)
-
1.RAJENDRA PRASAD SAHU
Adv. KAMDEO PANDEY,ABHAY KISHORE,ABHAY KISHORE, ,ABHAY KISHORE
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - SANJAY KUMAR TIWARI
-
2.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GIRIDIH
-
3.THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, GIRIDIH
-
4.LAND REFORMS DEPUTY COLLECTOR
-
5.JOGESHWAR SAHU
-
6.RANJEET KUMAR SINHA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
06-May-2026
Sri Ananda Sen, J.View PDF
Case Summary The Jharkhand High Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih to hear the petitioner's land ceiling appeal (No. 05/2024-25) on the scheduled date of 08.05.2026 and pass a reasoned order after giving all parties an opportunity to be heard. The court found that the "rejected" endorsement on the appeal memo was erroneous since no formal rejection order existed and the appeal was properly scheduled for hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
06-May-2026
Fresh Filing (Admission)
Sri Ananda Sen, J.
-
04-May-2026
Sri Ananda Sen, J.View PDF
-
04-May-2026
Fresh Filing (Admission)
Sri Ananda Sen, J.
-
15-Apr-2026
Sri Ananda Sen, J.View PDF
-
12-Jan-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
09-Dec-2025
Case filed
Registration No. WPC/3248/2026
Case Summary The Jharkhand High Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih to hear the petitioner's land ceiling appeal (No. 05/2024-25) on the scheduled date of 08.05.2026 and pass a reasoned order after giving all parties an opportunity to be heard. The court found that the "rejected" endorsement on the appeal memo was erroneous since no formal rejection order existed and the appeal was properly scheduled for hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts