Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1091 (JHR)

Kamal Prasad Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2015-09-14

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2015
Order : Seeking a direction upon the respondents to initiate a proceeding for removal of encroached public land by the respondent nos. 4 to 7, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitioner claiming ownership of an area ademeasuring 40'60' in Plot No. 3887, Khata No. 18 at Mouza Baridih vide registered sale-deed dated 11.10.1984 from Ram Chandra Sharma, asserts that upon receiving information through Right to Information Act, he submitted application on which the Deputy Commissioner, vide order dated 10.09.2007 directed spot verification by the Special Officer, Jamshedpur. The report submitted on 26.09.2007 discloses that residential houses are situated about 4050 feet away from the gas godown. Subsequently the Offier-in-Charge made application for initiation of proceeding under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C against the proprietor of Laxmi Gas Agency. The petitioner again approached the Deputy Commissioner, Jamshedpur on 16.03.2013 for demolition of the illegal construction. It is stated that another report dated 10.12.2013 was submitted by the Circle Officer to the Sub-divisional Officer, Dhalbhum, Jamshdpur still, the respondents did not take action in the matter and therefore, the petitioner approached the Sub-divisional Officer, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur on 31.05.2014 for taking necessary action. The petitioner asserts that on 06.01.2015 the Additional Commissioner-cum-Senior Officer, Tata Lease, Jamshedpur ordered initiation of BPLE case after making spot verification however, no action has been taken by the respondents. The petitioner again approached Officer-in-Charge, Sidgora Police Station as well as Special Officer, Jamshdepur Notified Area Committee on 26.05.2015 and 01.06.2015. Compelled by inaction on the part of the official respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. Mr. Dilip Kr. Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterates the stand taken in the writ petition and submits that the report submitted by the Circle Officer unerringly disclosed that public land has been encroached by one Surendra Deogam and others however, the respondents have failed to take action for removing such encroachment. It is contended that due to encroachment on the public plot, the petitioner's egress has been closed illegally. 4. Per contra, Mr. Kumar Sundram, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition and submits that the petitioner has raised disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in the writ proceeding. The petitioner on account of personal grievance against respondent no. 4 and others made representations before the authorities. Kumar Sundram, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition and submits that the petitioner has raised disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in the writ proceeding. The petitioner on account of personal grievance against respondent no. 4 and others made representations before the authorities. It is contended that merely because representations have been made and some report has been submitted, the respondents are not under a duty to initiate proceeding for removal of encroachment as alleged by the petitioner. 5. The writ petition does not disclose how the petitioner is the person aggrieved. In the entire writ petition except stating that he is citizen of India and resides within the jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner has failed to assert a legal right in himself and a corresponding duty in the respondents which the respondents have failed to perform. In “Rai Shivendra Bahadur Vs. Governing Body of the Nalanda College, Bihar Sharif & Ors.” reported in AIR 1962 SC 1210 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, “in order that mandamus may issue to compel the respondents to do something it must be shown that the Statutes impose a legal duty and the appellant has a legal right under the Statutes to enforce its performance”. The document produced by the petitioner in the present proceeding indicates that the gas godown was constructed about 22 years back when the area was not habitated and there was no residential house. The petitioner has claimed ownership over an area admeasuring 40'60' by virtue of saledeed dated 11.10.1984 still, he has failed to aver construction made by him thereon. In one of the representations, the petitioner alleged that due to construction of gas godown his egress would be closed however, report submitted by the Special Officer discloses that gas godown is about 40'50' from the residential houses. The gas godown is situated by the side of a river. Obviously, the plea taken by the petitioner that his egress would be closed due to gas godown has not been found true. I find that the petitioner has failed to establish that he is the person aggrieved. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.