Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 419 (JHR)

Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. Dharam Raj Singh

2010-04-06

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2010
Judgment Since the issues involved in both the writ applications are identical, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The dispute in both these writ applications is in respect of the premises which is admittedly in occupation of the petitioner and for which, proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, were initiated for the petitioners' eviction from the lands measuring about 30 decimals. 3. As it appears from the pleadings and submissions of the rival parties, both parties have raised their claim of right, title and interest over the disputed property. While the petitioner BCCL has claimed its right on the ground that a permanent lease in respect of the land was granted sometimes in the year 1942 and ever since then, the petitioner BCCL is in occupation of the lands, the respondent on the other, has raised a rival claim by contending that the land was purchased from the original recorded raiyat prior to 1963 and ever since the date of purchase, he has been coming in continuous occupation and possession of the land and furthermore, that the lands have been mutated in the Revenue Records of the State Government in the name of the father of the present respondent. 4. It appears that the parties in both the proceedings had submitted documents in support of their respective claims, before the Estate Officer. The Estate Officer recorded findings in favour of the petitioner BCCL and by his final order, had directed the respondents to vacate the disputed land. 5. Against the order of the Estate Officer, the respondents had preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority. It appears from the impugned order of the Appellate Authority that upon considering the entire submission of the parties and upon going through the orders of the Estate Officer, the Appellate Authority had recorded his observations that "the court below has not considered and discussed and dealt with the evidences adduced by the appellants before him with respect to the respective lands in question in all the cases. The court below has passed order of eviction against all these common and the same appellants in all the cases, noted above, without considering the evidences adduced by them. 6. The court below has passed order of eviction against all these common and the same appellants in all the cases, noted above, without considering the evidences adduced by them. 6. Counsel for the petitioner, while adverting to the aforementioned observations of the Appellate Authority, submits that after having observed that the learned court below has not discussed the evidences on record, the Appellate Authority ought to have either remitted the matter back to the lower court for a fresh decision on the relevant issues or ought to have considered the evidences including the documents on record at its own level in exercise of its powers and decided the issues finally. Instead, the Appellate Authority has virtually dropped the appeal with an observation that the aggrieved party is at liberty to file a civil suit in order to resolve the dispute between the parties in respect of the disputed land. Learned counsel adds further that the facts of the present case are almost identical to the facts in the case of Project Officer (Agent), Maheshpur Colliery of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad and another vs. the IVth Additional District Judge, Dhanbad and others which was disposed of by the Division Bench of this court vide LPA No. 602 of 2001 with a liberty to the disputing party to approach the Civil Courts. 7. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, would refer to and rely upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of New Satgram Engineering Works & another vs. Union of India & others reported in AIR 1981 SC 124 and submit that the Supreme Court has held in the aforesaid case that the dispute whether a particular property had vested under the Coal Mines Nationalization Act, is essentially a dispute of civil nature and can be adjudicated by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Learned counsel adds that in this view of the matter, and considering the fact that there is a dispute between the parties in the light of their rival claims, the matter has to be referred to the Civil Court for proper adjudication. Learned counsel adds further that the respondent has a genuine and bonafide claim of right, title and interest over the disputed land and by the rival claim made by the petitioner, a cloud has been cast upon the respondent's claim of title over the disputed property. 8. Learned counsel adds further that the respondent has a genuine and bonafide claim of right, title and interest over the disputed land and by the rival claim made by the petitioner, a cloud has been cast upon the respondent's claim of title over the disputed property. 8. Counsel for the respondent submits that considering the respondent's own anxiety to get his title declared by the Civil Court, he would approach the Civil Court for redressal of his grievances. Learned counsel however prays that until the respondent obtains an order from the Civil Court, in the context of his claim, the petitioner/B.C.C.L. should be restrained from dispossessing the respondent from the suit premises. 9. It appears from the impugned order of the Appellate Authority that he has pointed out some infirmities in the order of the Estate Officer by highlighting the fact that the Estate Officer has recorded his findings without discussing the evidences on record. It further appears that upon considering the rival submissions of the parties, the Appellate Authority has recorded his finding that the dispute essentially involves a disputed question of fact relating to the rival claims of title over the disputed lands and has therefore advised the aggrieved party to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. 10. The dispute between the rival parties in essence is, whether the disputed land had vested under the Coal Mines Nationalization Act with the petitioner BCCL? This is essentially a dispute of civil nature and, as rightly pointed out by the Appellate Authority, it can be adjudicated upon only by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. 11. In this view of the matter, the finding of the Appellate Authority cannot be said to be improper or perverse. The Appellate Authority has already granted liberty to the aggrieved party to approach the Civil Court. As it appears from the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent, the respondents have expressed their desire to take the lead to approach the Civil Court for declaration of their right, title and interest over the disputed land. 12. In the light of the above submission, this application is disposed of with a liberty to the respondent to avail the remedy of filing a civil suit before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for declaration of their right, title and interest over the disputed land, within a period of two months from today. 12. In the light of the above submission, this application is disposed of with a liberty to the respondent to avail the remedy of filing a civil suit before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for declaration of their right, title and interest over the disputed land, within a period of two months from today. Till such time, the petitioner/B.C.C.L. shall not initiate any proceeding for eviction of the respondents from the disputed land.