Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 779 (JHR)

Jyotish Ghosh v. Ranchi Municipal Corporation

2001-11-27

M.Y.EQBAL

body2001
JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. In this writ application the petitioners have prayed for quashing the impugned notice dated 24.2.2001 published in the newspaper, whereby respondents- Ranchi Municipal Corporation invited tender for settlement of Ramgarh Tracker Stand and further for a direction to the respondents restraining them not to interfere in future with Ramgarh Tracker Stand which is situated in R.S.Plot No. 1736 having total area of 0.425 acres. 3. The undisputed facts are that the plaintiff/petitioner filed suit for declaration of his title and recovery of possession and also permanent injunction restraining defendant/respondent-Municipality from disturbing the possession of the petitioner. The trial Court decreed the suit both on the question of title and adverse possession. The defendant/respondent, namely. Municipal Corporation filed Title Appeal being T.A. No. 13/ 1960 and the said Appeal was eventually taken by Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi who after considering the evidence affirmed the finding of the trial Court and maintained the decree on both the points. Thereafter, the respondent-Corporation went to Second Appeal to the High Court which was ultimately allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court as also first Appeal was set aside. 4. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the petitioner filed Special Leave Petition which was converted into Civil Appeal No. 1034 of 1971. The said appeal was ultimately allowed by the Supreme Court and the Judgment and the decree passed by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court was maintained. Consequently, the suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and permanent injunction was allowed. It is also not disputed that the petitioner levied execution case in which the Executing Court affected delivery of possession of the land in favour of the petitioner. Petitioners case is that inspite of the fact that the petitioners title and possession was declared by the Supreme Court, the respondent-Municipal Corporation illegally issued the impugned advertisement for settlement of the land in question for the purpose of Ramgarh Tracker Stand. It is stated in the writ application that similar advertisement, was issued in the last year also by the Corporation for the settlement of land as Tracker Stand and against that petitioner moved this court by filing CWJC No. 615/2000 (R) which has now become infructuous. 5. This Court alter hearing the parties on 19.9.2001 directed the state counsel to seek instruction from the Deputy Commissioner. 5. This Court alter hearing the parties on 19.9.2001 directed the state counsel to seek instruction from the Deputy Commissioner. Ranchi and file counter-affidavit. The order dated 19.9.2001 reads as under :-- "It is really a very sad state of affairs that the petitioners who after fighting for about 45 years with the Respondents-Municipal Corporation, Ranchi ultimately succeeded in the Supreme Court and decree for recovery of possession was passed and pursuant to that decree, the petitioners were put in possession over the lands in question by the learned Special Subordinate Judge, Ranchi in Misc. Case No. 19/1981 but inspite of that respondent-Corporation illegally exercise its right by settling the lands with other persons. By reason of the act of the Corporation, the lands in question have been occupied by various persons as a licence settlee under the Corporation. This Court, therefore, before passing an appropriate order, directs the petitioners to add the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, as party respondent No. 3. Mr. R.N. Sahay, learned SC I is directed to seek instruction from the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and file counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall serve a copy of the writ application alongwith all annexure to Mr. R.N. Sahay by tomorrow. Put up this case under the same heading on 10th October. 2001." 6. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent-Municipal Corporation, it is categorically stated that in view of the title of the petitioner declared by the Supreme Court, the Corporation should not rolled toll by using land as Ramgarh Tracker Stand. It is further stated that the Corporation has withdrawn auction notice arid returned back earnest money to the prospective bidder. For better appreciation para 9 and 10 of the counter-affidavit is reproduced herein below :-- "That accordingly, in compliance of the order no agreement was executed in favour of the said bidder and thereafter by terms of letter dated 21.5.2001 issued under the signature of the Administrator, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, the auction bidder has been directed to take back his earnest money and not to collect any toll in respect of the said Tracker stand." That the Corporation cannot in law lay any sort of claim in respect of the properties covered by the suit and which was ultimately decided against the Corporation by the Honble Supreme Court of India." 7. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in his counter-affidavit has reiterated the same thing and further stated that the State or the Deputy Commissioner is not the party in the suit and therefore it is for the Corporation to restrain itself from interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the land in question. 8. From the aforesaid facts it is therefore clear that by reason of act of the Corporation in making illegal settlement the land in question purported to be used for the Ram-garh Tracker Stand. Consequent upon the withdrawal of settlement notice the Corporation is supposed to make good to the injury caused to the petitioner inasmuch as admittedly because of illegal issuance of auction notice by the Corporation the vehicle owners started using the land as Ramgarh Stand. 9. For the reason aforesaid this writ application is allowed and the impugned settlement notice is quashed. Needless to say that in terms of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and further in view of the delivery of possession of the land given to the petitioner by the Executing Court, petitioner shall exercise their right, title, interest and possession over the land and there shall not be any interference from the side of respondent- Corporation or any person or persons through or under them. The respondent- Corporation shall take all necessary steps so that the land of the petitioners should not be used as Ramgarh Stand. 10. Petition allowed.