GUJAL MAHTO vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPTT OF REVENUE AND LAND REFORMS Advocate - MANISH MISHRA — WPC/7350/2023
Next hearing: : -.
CNR: JHHC010438642023
Filing Number
WPC/11694/2023
Filing Date
14-Dec-2023
Registration No
WPC/7350/2023
Registration Date
23-Dec-2023
Judge
Sri Ananda Sen, J.
Coram
Sri Ananda Sen, J.
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
LAND ACQUISITION ( 145 )
Sub-Category
Compensation Matter ( 10 )
Judicial Branch
Civil Section
Last updated 05-Jun-2026
Petitioner(s)
-
1.GUJAL MAHTO
Adv. ARVIND KUMAR CHOUDHARY,SEEMA KASHYAP,SEEMA KASHYAP, ,ABHISHEK KUMAR MISHRA,SEEMA KASHYAP
-
2.SHIVCHARAN MAHTO
-
3.LAXMAN MAHTO
-
4.CHANDRADEV MAHTO
-
5.ONKAR MAHTO
-
6.MAHENDRA MAHTO
-
7.NANDKISHORE MAHTO
-
8.RAM PRASAD MAHTO
-
9.TENTU MAHTO
-
10.DINDAYAL MAHTO ALIAS DINDAYAL YADAV
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPTT OF REVENUE AND LAND REFORMS Advocate - MANISH MISHRA
-
2.THE COMMISSIONER SANTHAL PARGANA DIVISION DUMKA
-
3.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DEOGHAR
-
4.THE DISTRICT LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER DEOGHAR
-
5.THE CIRCLE OFFICER MOHANPUR
-
6.THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN
-
7.HEMLAL MAHTO
-
8.NAGDI MAHTO
Case History
-
—
Next hearingPending
-
04-May-2026
Sri Ananda Sen, J.View PDF
WPC/7350/2023 - Summary: In this Jharkhand High Court writ petition by Gujal Mahto and others against the State of Jharkhand, the court allowed the petitioner's prayer for time to file a substitution petition after respondent No.8 passed away. The case was subsequently adjourned to enable compliance with this procedural requirement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
04-May-2026
Orders
Sri Ananda Sen, J.
-
30-Apr-2026
Orders
Sri Ananda Sen, J.
-
03-Jul-2024
Sri Ananda Sen, J.View PDF
-
12-Feb-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
14-Dec-2023
Case filed
Registration No. WPC/7350/2023
WPC/7350/2023 - Summary: In this Jharkhand High Court writ petition by Gujal Mahto and others against the State of Jharkhand, the court allowed the petitioner's prayer for time to file a substitution petition after respondent No.8 passed away. The case was subsequently adjourned to enable compliance with this procedural requirement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts