ORDER : The present writ petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 07.06.2018 passed by the respondent no. 4 – Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi in E.C Case No. 03 of 2018, whereby the petitioners have been directed to vacate the premises gifted to the Ranchi Municipal Corporation (RMC) for road widening. 2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that one Kripa Shankar Jaiswal had entered into two different agreement for sale dated 25.01.1986 with Most. Kausalya Devi, the mother of the petitioner no. 1 and Sushila Devi, the mother of the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 to sell the part of the land under Khata No. 27, Plot No. 754, Village-Kalyanpur, Thana No. 245, Thana – Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as “the said land”) and put them in symbolic possession over it under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. Thereafter, the mothers of the petitioners constructed houses upon the said land and have been residing therein along with their family members. The names of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners were duly mutated in the record of Ranchi Municipal Corporation and electricity and water connection were also granted in their favour and till date they are paying rent/taxes in lieu thereof. Since the sale deeds in terms of agreement for sale dated 25.01.1986 were not executed, the suits for specific performance were filed by the mothers of the petitioners on 29.07.2015 being Title Suit No. 105 and 106 of 2015, however, the same were dismissed vide order dated 22.02.2017. Aggrieved thereby, the Civil Appeal Nos. 12 of 2017 and 13 of 2017 have been filed before the Court of Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi which is still pending. In the meantime, the petitioners received notice contained in letter no. 448 dated 05.04.2018, whereby they were intimated that a building plan being Building Plan No. 54/455/10 has been sanctioned and in terms of the said sanction, the land owner has executed a gift deed with regard to 9.18 decimals of land in favour of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation over which, as per a complaint, the petitioners are in illegal possession. The petitioners were directed to vacate the premises within 48 hours fixing the date as 14.04.2018 in the court of Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi. The petitioners were directed to vacate the premises within 48 hours fixing the date as 14.04.2018 in the court of Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi. The petitioners submitted reply to the notice claiming that they are in possession of the said land by virtue of agreement for sale dated 25.01.1986, however, the Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi vide order dated 07.06.2018 held that the petitioners are in illegal occupation of the said land and further directed the concerned officer to take possession of the same. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as they have not been given any opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order. It is further submitted that the petitioners are not in illegal occupation of the said land, rather they had been put in symbolic possession of the same by virtue of the agreement for sale. It is further submitted that the petitioners have constructed the houses upon their respective part of the land and are residing therein. It is further submitted that the petitioners had also filed suits for specific performance and after dismissal of the same by the original court, the appeals preferred by the petitioners are still pending. It is also submitted that the dispute relating to the said land being still sub-judice before the appellate court, the Municipal Commissioner had no authority to pass the order of eviction against the petitioners. It is further submitted that the proceeding initiated against the petitioners was an encroachment proceedings, however, the provisions of the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Public land Encroachment Act, 1956 were not followed while passing the orders against them. The petitioners were also not given sufficient time to prefer appeal against the impugned order as the copy of the order dated 07.06.2018 was made available to them on 09.06.2018, which was a Saturday and on Monday morning i.e., 11.06.2018, the officers of the Ranchi Municipal Council, Ranchi sealed the shop of the petitioners, wherein perishable goods are lying, causing irreparable loss and injuries to the petitioners. It is further submitted that the matter is purely a civil dispute which can only be decided by a competent civil court and thus, the order passed by the Municipal Commissioner is without any jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the matter is purely a civil dispute which can only be decided by a competent civil court and thus, the order passed by the Municipal Commissioner is without any jurisdiction. It is also submitted that the petitioners have instituted the suits for specific performance in the year 2015 itself, whereas the notice was issued by the order of Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi in the year 2018. Moreover, the appeals preferred by the petitioners were pending before the appellate court when the notice was issued under the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 and, therefore, the order dated 07.06.2018 as well as the entire proceeding of EC Case No. 3 of 2018 are liable to be quashed and set-aside. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-Ranchi Municipal Corporation submits that the impugned order has been passed after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It is further submitted that the petitioners are in illegal possession of the said land which has duly been gifted by the owner of the same to the RMC. It is further submitted that the petitioners had filed objection under Section 188 r/w Sections 192 and 193 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 1922 before the Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi against the building plan in which some part of the said land was gifted to the Ranchi Municipal Corporation. The Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi rejected the objection of the petitioners vide order dated 01.10.2015, which was not challenged by them and as such, it attained finality. The petitioners have thus not approached this Court with clean hands and as such, they do not deserve any relief under extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the contents of the writ petition. The petitioners are claiming their rightful possession over the premises in question on the strength of the agreement for sale said to have been executed between the original owner of the land in question and the mothers of the petitioners in the year 1986, whereas the RMC has justified its action over the said land on the strength of the gift deed executed by the respondent nos. 8 and 9, who are the registered owner of the said land. 6. 8 and 9, who are the registered owner of the said land. 6. Since the appeals filed by the petitioners against dismissal of the suits for specific performance are still sub-judice before the appellate court, it would not be appropriate to comment on the merit of the petitioners’ claim over the said land as the same may affect the proceeding before the appellate court. 7. It appears from the record that the said land including some other land was sold to the respondent nos. 8 and 9 in the year 2012 by Santosh Kumar Jaiswal and Sunil Kumar Jaiswal, both sons of Kripa Shankar Jaiswal. Thereafter, the respondent nos. 8 and 9 intended to construct a residential-cum-commercial Complex over said land and as such, they got a plan sanctioned by the RMC and gifted some part of their land to the RMC for road widening. When the petitioners came to know about the sanction of the map, they filed an objection before the Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi under Section 188 read with Section 192 and 193 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 1922 for cancellation of the building plan on the ground that the land gifted to the RMC is the property of the petitioners and the respondent nos. 8 and 9 have no right to gift the same. The Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi vide order dated 01.10.2015, while rejecting the claim of the petitioners observed that they failed to produce any document with regard to their right, title and interest over the said land. The petitioners did not challenge the said order before any higher forum, thus the said order attained finality. In the meantime, a complaint was received against the petitioners alleging encroachment over the said land, in pursuance of which E.C Case No. 3 of 2018 was instituted and petitioners were noticed to show-cause and finally the order of eviction was passed against them on 07.06.2018 relying on the order of this Court dated 04.05.2017 passed in W.P.(PIL) No. 3072 of 2015. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the impugned order dated 07.06.2018 has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. However, on perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioners were noticed in the said proceeding and they also submitted their reply. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the impugned order dated 07.06.2018 has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. However, on perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioners were noticed in the said proceeding and they also submitted their reply. Since the claim of the petitioners was already decided by the Municipal Commissioner vide order dated 01.10.2015 and the same stand was taken by the petitioners in E.C. Case No. 3 of 2018, the Municipal Commissioner, relying upon the earlier order, which had attained finality, passed the impugned order of eviction against the petitioners as they were in possession of the property gifted to the Ranchi Municipal Corporation by the registered owner of the land. The petitioners have taken the same stand before this Court also, as had been taken by them before the Municipal Commissioner. Thus, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Municipal Commissioner. The petitioners have contended before this Court that they were not afforded sufficient opportunity before the court below to produce documents in support of their claim. Even if the contention of the petitioners is accepted, no prejudice appears to have been caused to them as the petitioners have not brought on record any document before this Court in support of their prima facie right, title and interest upon the said land. On the contrary, it is revealed from the record that the respondent nos. 8 and 9 are the registered owner of the said land and in order to get the map of commercial-cum-residential complex sanctioned, they gifted the part of the land including the land which is in possession of the petitioners to the Ranchi Municipal Corporation. 9. Much stress has been given by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the argument that since the appeals arising out of the suits for specific performance are pending before the appellate court, the Municipal Commissioner had no authority to pass the order of eviction against them. I do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is not the case of the petitioners that any order of injunction has been passed by the appellate court in their favour, rather suits filed by them before the original court have already been dismissed. I do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is not the case of the petitioners that any order of injunction has been passed by the appellate court in their favour, rather suits filed by them before the original court have already been dismissed. Thus, the Ranchi Municipal Corporation is within its jurisdiction to evict the petitioners from the said land/property which has been gifted to it by the real owner of the property. 10. Considering the aforesaid circumstance, I do not find any infirmity in the order dated 07.06.2018 passed by the Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi so as to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction. However, it is made clear that the present order shall not prejudice the case of the petitioners in any pending civil proceeding. 11. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.