Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 853 (JHR)

Amarnath Sen v. State Of Jharkhand

2003-07-21

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2003
JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 20th November, 2002 passed by the S.D.O., Dumka in E.E. Case No. 57/2002-03 whereby the petitioner has been evicted from the land measuring 10 Kattas having Plot No. I37-A (Part) under Khata No. 31, Mauza-Phutabandh, District Dumka. 2. According to petitioner one Dr. (Miss) Ashalata Bihswas was displaced during the Masanjore Project. The land in question was acquired for Basauri purpose vide L.A. Case No. 17 of 1954-55. It was settled with Dr. (Miss) Ashalata Biswas, who was the recorded Basauri raiyat in the month of January. 1980. The said Dr. (Miss) Ashalata Biswas made oral agreement with petitioner for an area of 4 Kattas of land including the khaparposh house and the Plinth area for consideration of Rs. 40,000/-. She received a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as earnest money and gave possession of 4 Kattas of land to the petitioner. The petitioner having right over the land, the proceeding under Section 42 of Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Suppl. Provisions) Act, 1949 was not maintainable. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the land in question being Basauri land, the S.D.O., Dumka has no jurisdiction to evict the petitioner. 4. Admittedly there is nothing on the record to suggest that the petitioner has any right and title over the land in question, The question whether he has acquired any right, adverse to the right of Dr. (Miss) Ashalata Biswas or not, cannot be determined by this Court under writ jurisdiction. 5. Counsel for the petitioner relied on the order-sheet of L.A. Case No. 17/1954-55 to suggest that the land was acquired for Basauri purpose. But this Court under writ jurisdiction cannot give a declaration that the land is Basauri land and not an agricultural land. In this background, this Court is not Inclined to give any finding on merit of the case. The petitioner, if so chooses, may move before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate declaration and may also claim for restoration of possession, 6. If the petitioner moves before any Court of competent Jurisdiction for such relief, the respondents cannot derive any advantage of eviction order dated 20th November, 2002 passed in E.E. Case No. 57/2002-03, the aforesaid issue having not been decided. 7. The writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observation. However, there shall be no order as to costs.