Jharkhand High Court
Prabudh Nagar Sahakari Grih Nirman ... vs State Of Jharkhand on 12 July, 2019
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.3353 of 2019
---------
Prabudh Nagar Sahakari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd.
......... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand, through Secretary, Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Govt. of Jharkhand
2. Engineer-in-Chief, Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Govt. of Jharkhand
3. Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi
4. Additional Collector, Ranchi
5. Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi
6. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ranchi
7. Assistant Engineer, Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Govt. of Jharkhand
8. Circle Officer, Ratu, Ranchi
9. Officer-in-Charge, Ratu, Ranchi .......... Respondents
---------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohitashya Roy, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, Advocate
---
03/12.07.2019 This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder direction has been sought for upon the respondents to explain to this Court as to how and under what authority they are laying down the pipelines across the land of the petitioner in spite of decree passed by the competent court of civil jurisdiction declaring right, title, interest and possession of the petitioner over the land in question which comprises within plot no.3399, Khata No.194, village Simalia, District-Ranchi measuring an area of 23.50 acres.
It is the case of the petitioner that a declaratory suit has been filed by the petitioner's Samiti being Title Suit No.170 of 1998 in which decree and judgment has been filed in his favour against which, the State of Bihar now Jharkhand has preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No.97 of 2008 which was decided vide judgment pronounced on 23.09.2015, whereby and whereunder the appellate Court has confirmed the decree and judgment passed in the aforesaid title suit. The petitioner grievance is that the State of Jharkhand has not assailed the judgment passed in first appeal by preferring second appeal before the appropriate Forum and after accepting the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court, the respondents now are disturbing the peaceful possession by taking steps for demolishing the structure made there over and therefore, action of the authorities are absolutely arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable.
Further submission has been made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the second appeal although has been filed as informed to the petitioner counsel on yesterday and as such the appeal, if any, has been filed after lapse of about more than 3 ½ years which itself is barred by limitation and hence on this ground also as on date, the order passed by the trial Court has attained its finality.
Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand has submitted by referring to the judgment passed by the first appellate court, wherein there is reference of initiation of proceeding under the provision of Section 4(H) of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 in which the Deputy Commissioner being the competent authority has passed the order of cancellation of Jamabandi way back in the year 1988 which has not been challenged by the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner cannot now claim his title after cancellation of the aforesaid Jamabandi created in its favour.
The order passed by the competent authority under Section 4(H) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 has been challenged before this Court but the writ petition was withdrawn.
His further submission is that as on date the petitioner is not in possession of the land in question.
This Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties is of the view that the matter requires consideration so far as the grievance of the petitioner is concerned, therefore, learned counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand is directed to seek instruction and file detailed counter affidavit by giving para-wise reply to the averment made in the writ petition before the next date of listing.
List this case on 29.07.2019.
W.P.(C) No.3353 of 2019Ad-Interim:-
Mr. Rohitashya Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made prayer for passing appropriate order in the nature of ad-interim relief, since the respondent authorities are bent upon for demolishing the construction lying over the land in question.
This Court after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the material available on record more particularly the decree passed by the trial Court in Title Suit No.170 of 1998 which has been confirmed by the First Appellate Court by the judgment dated 23.09.2015 passed in Title Appeal No.97 of 2008, wherein there is conclusive finding of the Courts in favour of the petitioner of declaration of the right and title in its favour.
Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-State has submitted that he has got no information whether any second appeal has been filed or not?
This Court without entering into the aforesaid controversy, since there are two concurrent findings of the Courts in favour of the petitioner declaring the right and title is of the view that the petitioner is able to make out a prima-facie case for passing ad-interim order as also the balance of convenience lies in his favour, since he has submitted that if construction over the land in question would be demolished, the petitioner will suffer loss and since two concurrent finding of the competent court of civil jurisdiction is in favour of the petitioner, therefore, deem it fit and proper to direct the respondent authorities to maintain the status quo as exists today.
In view thereof, the status quo as exists today with respect to the land pertaining to plot no.3399, Khata No.194, village Simalia, District- Ranchi measuring an area of 23.50 acres, shall be maintained till the next date of listing.
Mr. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the State-Respondent has ensured to this Court that this order shall be communicated today itself to the concerned authority for compliance of the interim order passed by this Court.
Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, learned counsel for the State-Respondent.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Rohit/-