Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 628 (JHR)

Sankhu Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2019-03-05

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2019
ORDER : No one appears for the petitioners. However, Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, learned A.C. to S.C. (L&C) for the respondents is present. 2. As this matter is pending since 2003, the same is being disposed of based on the materials available on record. 3. In this application, the prayer of the petitioner is for removal of the encroachment from the petitioners’ land admeasuring .11 ¼ acres bearing Khata No. 323, Plot No. 167, Thana No. 198, Village Baratola, P.S. Town Sadar (Daltonganj), District Palamau which according to the petitioners is being encroached by the respondents No. 3 and 4 for the purpose of construction of Water Tank. 4. It is the case of the petitioners as could be deciphered from the averment made in the writ application that petitioner No. 1 has purchased the land admeasuring .11 ¼ acres bearing Khata No. 323, Plot No. 167, Thana No. 198, Village Baratola, P.S. Town Sadar (Daltonganj), District Palamau from Moinuddin and Megraj Mohammad through registered sale deed dated 14.10.1960. She has stated that her vendor Moinuddin had purchased the land in question from Mahamaya Devi and others in the year 1959 through registered sale deed. It is further case of the petitioner No. 1 that she got her name mutated and is paying rent regularly. Since the State authorities had claimed the land in question but no documents could be produced with respect to the title over the land, the Land Acquisition Officer issued a certificate that the land has been recorded in the name of the petitioner No. 1 and the said land has neither been acquired nor any compensation has been paid. Subsequent thereto a mutation proceeding was initiated and the petitioner No. 1 had also got a plan for construction of house approved by the District Administration on 21.07.1999. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid fact, the petitioner No. 1 claimed that the act of the respondent authorities in constructing water tank over the land in question amounts to encroachment upon her property and they be restrained from carrying on further construction. 6. Several affidavits have been filed on behalf of both the parties. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid fact, the petitioner No. 1 claimed that the act of the respondent authorities in constructing water tank over the land in question amounts to encroachment upon her property and they be restrained from carrying on further construction. 6. Several affidavits have been filed on behalf of both the parties. However, for the purpose of deciding the case, supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents No. 3 and 4 has been considered as the factual aspects have been sequentially narrated in the said affidavit which has been filed pursuant to the order of this Court dated 22.11.2012. It has been stated therein that originally in the cadastral survey the land of Khata No. 323 was of Lala Jha. Subsequently he died leaving his two sons Gopal Jha and Rampal Jha and at the time of vesting of Jamindari, the land was claimed as Bakast and accordingly demand in the name of Gopal Jha and Rampal Jha was jointly opened. Subsequently Rampal Jha died and his estate was succeeded by his wife Mahamaya Devi and minor sons. Mahamaya Devi for self and on behalf of her minor sons sold plot No. 167 area 0.11 ¼ acre to Moinuddin through registered sale deed No. 4266 of 1959 and subsequently the father of Moinuddin sold the same land to the petitioner No. 1. It has been stated that on account of the requirement for construction of quarters and Water Tank, 5.08 acres of land in village Baratola in several plots including part of plot No. 167 (including area 0.11 of the petitioner), which is the subject matter of this writ application, has been acquired through land acquisition proceeding being L.A. Case No. 3 of 1963-63. After conclusion of the proceeding Award was prepared and the compensation amount was also received by the petitioner No. 1. It has also been stated that the mutation on the basis of sale deed of the year 1960 was applied for in the year 1996. After conclusion of the proceeding Award was prepared and the compensation amount was also received by the petitioner No. 1. It has also been stated that the mutation on the basis of sale deed of the year 1960 was applied for in the year 1996. Subsequently counter affidavit further reveals that the petitioner made forged and fabricated sale deed for an area of 3 ¾ decimal of land under Khata No. 323 which was made in the name of Kiran Devi, who subsequently instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 43 of 2003 and prayed for injunction for restraining construction of Water Tank and ultimately prayer of plaintiff for injunction was rejected on 17.07.2003. 7. Learned A.C. to S.C. (L&C) has submitted that the petitioner No. 1 has no right, title and possession over the land in question in which the Water Tank is being constructed which could be seen from affidavits filed on behalf of the State and therefore the prayer of the petitioners cannot be acceded to. 8. Both the petitioners claimed that the respondent authorities were encroaching upon their property but it appears that the land in question was already acquired and the compensation was duly paid to the petitioners. It further appears that in the title suit filed by the petitioner No. 2 Kiran Devi the prayer for injunction has already been rejected. It is all the more surprising that all though the petitioners claimed to have purchased the land in the year 1960, but application for mutation was made in the year 1996. The entire aspects which could be read from the writ application as well as the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondent No 3 and 4 reveals a disputed question of fact. 9. Since there appears to be cloud over the title of the petitioners over the land in question, their prayer for removal of encroachment cannot be acceded to in the present writ application. As a consequence, I find no reason to entertain this writ application, which is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.