Jharkhand High Court
Shaukat Ansari vs State Of Jharkhand on 10 March, 2022
Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar, Ratnaker Bhengra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)
[Against the order dated 3rd July 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court
in W.P.(C) No. 804 of 2018]
L.P.A No. 503 of 2019
1. Shaukat Ansari, aged about 35 years, s/o late Gayasuddin Ansari, r/o
Bariatu, PO & PS-Bariatu, District-Ranchi
2. Majid Hawari, aged about 60 years, s/o Saheb Hawari, r/o Banjari
Chainpur, PO & PS- Banjari, District- Chainpur .......... Appellants
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary, Department of Welfare, having office at Secretariat Nepal
House, PO & PS-Doranda, District-Ranchi
3. Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Palamu PO, PS &
District-Palamu
4. Block Development Officer, Chainpur, PO & PS-Chainpur, District-
Palamu
5. Circle Officer, Chainpur, PO & PS- Chainpur, District-Palamu
6. Virendra Kumar Singh, s/o not known to the appellants, r/o Babhandi, PO
& PS- Chainpur, District-Palamu ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
For the Appellants : Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate
For the Resp.-State of Jharkhand : Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, SC-VII
---------
ORDER
th 10 March 2022 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
This is an assigned matter by virtue of order dated 8 th February 2022 passed on the administrative side by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, High Court of Jharkhand.
2. The appellants have challenged the order dated 3 rd July 2019 passed in W.P.(C) No. 804 of 2018.
3. The appellants were awarded work for erecting boundary wall around the plot situated at Khata Nos. 170, 208, 14, 90 and 200 comprised under Plot Nos.1183, 1182, 1185, 81 and 89. The work order was to be executed by 15th February 2015. According to the appellants, when they commenced the work for raising boundary wall around the Kabristan they 2 L.P.A No. 503 of 2019 came to know that besides the plot numbers mentioned in the work order dated 10th October 2014 the area of the Kabristan comprised under Plot Nos. 657 and 662 and, therefore, the villagers made application to the District Welfare Officer, Medininagar, Palamu for addition of Plot Nos. 657 and 662 which was within the Kabristan.
4. The appellants would also refer to the letter dated 24th March 2017 which was written by the District Welfare Officer, Palamu to Majid Ansari and Shaukat Ansari and a report of the Circle Officer, Chainpur, Palamu dated 30th August 2017 to lay support to their claim that they raised boundary wall around the Kabristan under the work order dated 10th October 2014 on the basis of the report of the Circle Officer, Chainpur, Palamu.
5. Before the writ Court, the State of Jharkhand took a plea that Khata Nos. 170 and 208 are not entered in the record of rights in the name of the Kabristan rather it was recorded in the name of Smt. Gauri Devi and that Plot Nos. 657 and 662 within Khata Nos. 170 and 208 were under serious dispute.
6. We would extract paragraph no-9 of the counter-affidavit dated 30th January 2019, filed on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner who was respondent no.3 in W.P.(C) No. 804 of 2018, which reads as under:
"9. That the Labhuk Samity of village Babhandi, district Palamau, constructed the boundary wall around plot no. 662 and 657. The plot no. 662 and 657 is disputed plot and that plot is Raiyati. The Labhuk Samity constructed the boundary wall in plot no. 662 and 657 without any work order or sanction of the respondent. Therefore in such circumstances the payment of Rs.3,70,000/- is not sustainable in the eye of law."
7. It is also relevant here to extract paragraph no.24 of the rejoinder affidavit dated 21st February 2019 filed by the appellants/writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 804 of 2018 which reads as under:
"24. That in reply to para 9 & 10 it is stated that plots nos. 662 and 657 are not raiyati plots and those plots have been settled in favour of the kabristan committee which is evident from the report of the C.O, Palamu annexure-9 of the present reply."
8. The writ Court took note of the stand taken by the State of Jharkhand which did not own the claim of the appellants for work to the 3 L.P.A No. 503 of 2019 tune of Rs.3,70,000/- and accepted the said stand of the respondents observing that for a disputed money claim the writ Court is not an appropriate Forum.
9. In the order dated 3rd July 2019, the writ Court has observed as under:
"9. It appears from the stand taken by the State authority in the counter affidavit that plot over which the boundary wall is constructed are in dispute, since the said plot has been said to be raiyati as would be evident from the statement made in paragraph-9 of the counter affidavit. The aforesaid statement has been made at paragraph-9 of the counter affidavit although has been disputed in the rejoinder affidavit as appears from the paragraph-24, therefore, the construction made over plot nos.662 and 657 is seriously in dispute and upon such dispute the petitioner is seeking a direction from this Court for making disbursement of the money which he has raised in constructing the part of the boundary wall.
10. It is the settled position of law that if the money claim is in dispute, the writ Court cannot be said to be appropriate Forum for adjudicating the dispute. Further, the petitioner has started the work in pursuance to the order dated 10.10.2014 which is not a statutory contract and hence on that ground also, this Court is not supposed to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
11. In view thereof and in the entirety of the facts and circumstance of the case and taking into consideration the dispute involved with respect to the disbursement of money to the tune of Rs.3,70,000.00/-, this Court refrains itself from exercising the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
10. Mr. Sidhartha Roy, the learned counsel for the appellants, would submit that the claim raised by the appellants in the face of the report dated 30th August 2017 of the Circle Officer, Chainpur, Palamu could not have been held a disputed claim so as to deny them payment for the work executed. It is submitted that there is no complaint as regards quality of the work and only for the reason that the respondent no.6-Virendra Kumar Singh sought to raise a dispute the State could not have denied payment to the appellants.
11. We find that there was a dispute around the area comprising the Kabristan would appear from the various documents produced by the appellants in the present Letters Patent Appeal. No doubt the counter- affidavit filed by the State of Jharkhand before the writ Court did not give 4 L.P.A No. 503 of 2019 complete picture about the dispute, but at the same time, we do not find any explanation by the appellants why the work under Annexure-4 could not be completed by 15th February 2015 rather it was completed in the year 2017. From the materials brought on record particularly the objection raised by the respondent no.6-Virendra Kumar Singh and the letter dated 24th March 2017 of the District Welfare Officer, Medininagar, Palamu vide Annexure-5, we further find that the appellants were well aware of the dispute over Plot Nos. 657 and 662 for the reason that they themselves arrayed Virendra Kumar Singh a party in the writ proceeding as respondent no.6.
12. In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the order dated 3rd July 2019 and, accordingly, L.P.A. No. 503 of 2019 is dismissed with liberty to the appellants to take recourse to other remedy as available to them in law.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated : 10th March 2022 sudhir/N.A.F.R