Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1087 (JHR)

Manoj Kumar Sahu v. State of Jharkhand

2013-09-21

AMITAV K.GUPTA

body2013
ORAL ORDER Per D.N. Patel, A.C.J.: 1. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is encroachment upon the public road at Mouza Boreya, Police Station Kanke, Khata No. 631, Plot No. 693, Area 0.06 acre stands recorded as 'Gair Mazrua Aam Raasta' in the Revisional Survey Record of Rights. This description is given in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3 whereas, in the prayer, the petitioner has mentioned Plot No. 631, Khata No. 185. Both are different plot numbers and khata numbers. The description of plot number and khata number made in writ petition is incorrect. In the order passed by the Circle Officer, Kanke, Khata No. 631, Plot No. 693 and Thana No. 185 are mentioned. This is the correct narration referred in the counter affidavit filed by the State. 2. Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out in detail about the annexures annexed in the petition and has submitted that despite there is an order passed by the Circle Officer, Kanke dated 11th August, 2010, respondent no. 4 has not removed the encroachment. The said order has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority i.e. by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi vide order dated 20th January, 2011. The appeal preferred by respondent no. 4 was dismissed and therefore, this Public Interest Litigation has been preferred for removal of the encroachment upon Plot No. 631 under Khata No. 185. 3. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Jharkhand has vehemently submitted that this is not a Public Interest Litigation at all. This is absolutely a Private Interest Litigation and this very petitioner has already preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2681 of 2010 for the very same prayer and the said prayer was not granted by this Hon'ble Court and no Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the order passed by this Court. This order is annexed at Annexure2 to this memo of the petition. 4. It is also submitted that looking to the prayer made in this petition, it appears that he has referred Plot No 631 under Khata No. 185, but, looking to the order, passed by the Circle Officer correct Plot No. is 693, Khata No. 631 and Thana No. 185. Thus, there is no correct prayer so far as removal of the encroachment is concerned. Thus, there is no correct prayer so far as removal of the encroachment is concerned. If this petition is allowed perhaps, there may not be any encroachment in Plot No. 631 and it might be belonging to some private persons and therefore, this petition is not tenable at law. 5. It is further submitted that a detailed counter affidavit has been filed in which it has been stated that the order, passed by the Circle Officer is for some another plot, which is mentioned in paragraph no. 6 of the counter affidavit filed by the State, and after the order passed by the Appellate Authority, i.e. after the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 20th January, 2011 now the Circle Officer has taken all steps for removal of the encroachment and as the encroacher is a private party and as there is dispute between the private parties, the assistance of the concerned police is also sought for and the letters to that effect has also been written to the Circle Officer and one of them is annexed at Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed by the State and thus, this petition which is a Private Interest Litigation may not be entertained by this Court. 6. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this Public Interest Litigation for the following reasons: (i) It appears that there is some encroachment by respondent no. 4 upon a land which is situated at Mouza Boreya, Police Station Kanke, Khata No. 631, Plot No. 693, Area 0.06 acre whereas, in the writ petition the narration of the land at which there is alleged encroachment is something else. There is reference of Plot No. 631 under Khata No. 185. Without doing any homework this writ petition has been preferred. (ii) Looking to annexures annexed by the petitioner himself in an order passed by the Circle Officer dated 11th August, 2010, the narration of the property is different. Thus, it appears that if we allow this writ petition for Plot No. 631 perhaps, there may not be any encroachment or it may be even a private land. Thus, absolutely incorrect is the prayer in this Public Interest Litigation. Thus, it appears that if we allow this writ petition for Plot No. 631 perhaps, there may not be any encroachment or it may be even a private land. Thus, absolutely incorrect is the prayer in this Public Interest Litigation. (iii) Looking to the further facts as stated in the annexures of this writ petition as well as looking to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3 it appears that for the encroachment in question as narrated in paragraph no. 6 of the counter affidavit, the Circle Officer has already passed an order on 11th August, 2010 for removal of the encroachment. Thereafter, the said order was also confirmed by the Appellate Authority i.e. by the Deputy Commissioner vide his order dated 20th January, 2011 and thereafter also, steps have been taken by the Circle Officer for removal of the encroachment and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Circle Officer has also sought for police assistance. Letters have been written to the police authority. One of such letters is at Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed by the State. Thus, it is not even a case of the State Government that they are sitting tight upon the matter, but, looking to the counter affidavit it appears that they are taking all steps for removal of the encroachment, but, it always happens that whenever there is encroachment, there is resistance by the encroacher and therefore, sometimes police assistance is necessary. (iv) This petitioner has also preferred earlier a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 2681 of 2010, which was disposed of vide order dated 13th September, 2010 and again this petition has been preferred by the very same petitioner. Looking to the facts of the case, it appears that it is not a Public Interest Litigation at all. The prayer is also wrong so far as removal of encroachment is concerned. Government is not sitting tight upon the matter. They are also in the direction of the orders passed by the Circle Officer which has been confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. All these facts are also known to the petitioner which have been suppressed by the petitioner, which are referred in the counter affidavit filed by the State. 7. Government is not sitting tight upon the matter. They are also in the direction of the orders passed by the Circle Officer which has been confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. All these facts are also known to the petitioner which have been suppressed by the petitioner, which are referred in the counter affidavit filed by the State. 7. In these sets of circumstances, we see no reason to entertain this writ petition and hence, the same is dismissed with a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. five thousand only). The amount shall be deposited by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today before the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, Nyaya Sadan, Doranda, Ranchi. 8. Registry of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, Nyaya Sadan, Doranda, Ranchi. Petition dismissed.