Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1222 (JHR)

RAMDEO PRASAD KUSHWAHA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND

2015-10-05

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2015
JUDGMENT : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. Seeking a direction upon the respondents to showcause under what authority the respondents have constructed the road and to direct the respondents to provide compensation to the petitioners, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioners, resident of village-Naiyadih, Distt.Giridih claim that their father purchased land through registered saledeeds and they were paying rent to the Government of Jharkhand. It is stated that under MNREGA Scheme, one Mr. Naresh Turi, the respondent no.6 was appointed Meth. The respondent no.6 without taking permission from the Competent Authority started construction of the road over the land of the petitioners and therefore, the petitioners wrote a letter to the Mukhia, who on 15.06.2013 issued a notice. The petitioners submitted representation before the Deputy Commissioner however, no action has been taken by the respondents and therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners refers to Annexure1 (saledeed) and submits that the land in question has been purchased by the father of the petitioners and the Mukhia of the village issued a general notice dated 15.06.2013, which would corroborate the stand of the petitioners that the land in question belongs to the petitioners however, the respondent no.6 continued to encroach upon the land of the petitioners. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand resists the writ petition and submits that the writ petition involves disputed questions of title, which cannot be adjudicated in the present writ petition. 5. I find that in the writ petition, the petitioners have averred that the respondent no.6 without taking permission from the Competent Authority started digging the land. The grievance of the petitioners is against the alleged illegal action of the respondent no.6. The petitioners claimed title through registered saledeed allegedly executed in favour of their fathers for consideration. The petitioners have raised a grievance that though they submitted representation to the Deputy Commissioner-respondent no.2 however, the Deputy Commissioner has not taken any action in the matter. The dispute between the petitioners and respondent no.6 cannot be adjudicated in the present proceeding. Merely because the petitioners have submitted representation/complaint to the Deputy Commissioner, they cannot claim a legal right in themselves to seek mandamus against the authorities. The dispute between the petitioners and respondent no.6 cannot be adjudicated in the present proceeding. Merely because the petitioners have submitted representation/complaint to the Deputy Commissioner, they cannot claim a legal right in themselves to seek mandamus against the authorities. Since the grievance of the petitioners is mainly against the respondent no.6, that is, against a private person, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition involves question of title of the petitioners over the land in question. 6. Considering the above facts, I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.