JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Vandana Singh, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9 and Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, learned counsel for respondent no.10. 2. This petition has been filed for direction to the respondents to show cause as to under what circumstances, in spite to the notice and knowledge of the officials of the State, illegally the boundary wall has been constructed in front of the gate of the petitioner and no case of such obstruction has been instituted by the police. 3. Mr. Rahul Kumar Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the lawful owner of the land, measuring 5 Kathas under Plot No.1015 and measuring 7.5 Kathas under Plot No.1017, total land measuring 12.5 Kathas under Revisional Survey Khata No.234, Korha Toli, Village- Kokar, Thana No.196, Police Station- Sadar, District- Ranchi. The petitioner has purchased the aforesaid land by registered sale deed in the year 2008. He further submits that all residents of the locality were using ten feet wide road from corner of the north-east direction of the petitioner's land, running all through adjacent to the northern nala, for reaching the principal road. The petitioner was availing the easementary right of way through such road since past 45 years without any resistance from side or corner. He further submits that Plot No.1068, situated to the eastern side of the petitioner's land belongs to one Khaira Barla (respondent no.7) who is residing with his family members and he captured around 5 Kathas of said land, but as it never created any trouble for the residents of Plot No.1015 and 1017, hence nobody raised any objection. He also submits that forcefully boundary wall has been constructed in front of the petitioner's gate and the petitioner is not allowed to use the ten feet public road from the locality to reach the main road. He further submits that the petitioner has filed a case before the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ranchi under Section 147 Cr.P.C. in which a report is there, which suggests that the road was there. He also submits that subsequently the authorities have filed the report stating that the private respondents have purchased the land and the road in question is within the area of the private respondents. He also submits that subsequently the authorities have filed the report stating that the private respondents have purchased the land and the road in question is within the area of the private respondents. He further submits that the Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can interfere when any wrong is brought to the knowledge of the Court. He further submits that only by way of one stamp paper the land bearing Plot No.1068 was purchased by the private respondents without following due process of law as prescribed under the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. He also submits that the said land is Bakast Bhuinhari land. He further submits that the proceeding under Section 147 Cr.P.C. has been dropped by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ranchi which is the subject matter of the dispute, which is illegal. He relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Anr., [ 2011 (6) Supreme 737 ]. 4. Paragraph 10 of the said judgment is quoted herein below: “10. In the earlier order dated 15-5-2009, the objects and benefits of registration were explained and we extract them for ready reference : The Registration Act, 1908 was enacted with the intention of providing orderliness, discipline and public notice in regard to transactions relating to immovable property and protection from fraud and forgery of documents of transfer. This is achieved by requiring compulsory registration of certain types of documents and providing for consequences of non-registration. Section 17 of the Registration Act clearly provides that any document (other than testamentary instruments) which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish whether in present or in future ‘any right, title or interest’ whether vested or contingent of the value of Rs 100 and upwards to or in immovable property. Section 49 of the said Act provides that no document required by Section 17 to be registered shall, affect any immovable property comprised therein or received as evidence of any transaction affected such property, unless it has been registered. Registration of a document gives notice to the world that such a document has been executed. Registration provides safety and security to transactions relating to immovable property, even if the document is lost or destroyed. Registration of a document gives notice to the world that such a document has been executed. Registration provides safety and security to transactions relating to immovable property, even if the document is lost or destroyed. It gives publicity and public exposure to documents thereby preventing forgeries and frauds in regard to transactions and execution of documents. Registration provides information to people who may deal with a property, as to the nature and extent of the rights which persons may have, affecting that property. In other words, it enables people to find out whether any particular property with which they are concerned, has been subjected to any legal obligation or liability and who is or are the person(s) presently having right, title, and interest in the property. It gives solemnity of form and perpetuate documents which are of legal importance or relevance by recording them, where people may see the record and enquire and ascertain what the particulars are and as far as land is concerned what obligations exist with regard to them. It ensures that every person dealing with immovable property can rely with confidence upon the statements contained in the registers (maintained under the said Act) as a full and complete account of all transactions by which the title to the property may be affected and secure extracts/copies duly certified.” Registration of documents makes the process of verification and certification of title easier and simpler. It reduces disputes and litigations to a large extent.” 5. On the other hand, Mrs. Vandana Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the Section 147 Cr.P.C. proceeding was initiated at the instance of the petitioner. She took the Court to the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ranchi dated 07.05.2022. By way of referring this order, she submits that it has been observed in that order that it is clear from the report of the Circle Officer and the Officer-in Charge that the disputed land is a purchased land of respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9. She also submits that the petitioner has not appeared before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ranchi on three dates and thereafter the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate has dropped the proceeding. 7, 8 and 9. She also submits that the petitioner has not appeared before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ranchi on three dates and thereafter the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate has dropped the proceeding. She further submits that the disputed question of fact is involved in this petition and this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not interfere in this petition as the petitioner is having alternative remedy. She further submits that even the order passed under Section 147 Cr.P.C. is not under challenge in this petition and that order is revisable. She relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, [ (2014) 1 SCC 603 ]. 6. Paragraphs 15 and 16 of the said judgment are quoted herein below: “15. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognised some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy i.e. where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case [ AIR 1964 SC 1419 ] , Titaghur Paper Mills case [Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433 : 1983 SCC (Tax) 131] and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. 16. In the instant case, the Act provides complete machinery for the assessment/reassessment of tax, imposition of penalty and for obtaining relief in respect of any improper orders passed by the Revenue Authorities, and the assessee could not be permitted to abandon that machinery and to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution when he had adequate remedy open to him by an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The remedy under the statute, however, must be effective and not a mere formality with no substantial relief. In Ram and Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana [ (1985) 3 SCC 267 ] this Court has noticed that if an appeal is from “Caesar to Caesar's wife” the existence of alternative remedy would be a mirage and an exercise in futility.” 7. On these grounds, Mrs. Vandana Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that this petition is fit to be dismissed. 8. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9 submits that the petitioner has damaged the boundary wall of respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9 and tried to trespass the land of Plot No.1068 in a most arbitrary manner, which was subsequently repaired by respondent nos.7, 8 and 9. He further submits that by way of suppressing the material facts, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. He also submits that there is six feet road on the southern side of the plot of the petitioner which was being used as ingress and outgress which is clear from the counter affidavit. He further submits that photographs have been annexed with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9, which suggest that the petitioner is having the road of six feet on the southern side of his plot. On these grounds, he submits that this writ petition is fit to be dismissed. 9. Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, learned counsel for respondent no.10 submits that the petitioner has moved before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ranchi under Section 147 Cr.P.C., however the petitioner has not appeared and that is why, that proceeding has been dropped. He further submits that the matter of easementary rights exclusively falls within the jurisdiction of the SDO/Deputy Commissioner. The Ranchi Municipal Corporation has no power or jurisdiction in the matter related to the easementary rights or encroachment matter under the Act. He also submits that if the case is of encroachment of public road then the competent authority under the Jharkhand Public Land Encroachment Act is applicable where the Circle Officer of the concerned Circle is the competent authority. On these grounds, he submits that the respondent-Ranchi Municipal Corporation is helpless to the petitioner in the instant case. 10. He also submits that if the case is of encroachment of public road then the competent authority under the Jharkhand Public Land Encroachment Act is applicable where the Circle Officer of the concerned Circle is the competent authority. On these grounds, he submits that the respondent-Ranchi Municipal Corporation is helpless to the petitioner in the instant case. 10. In view of the above facts and considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court has gone through the materials on the record. This matter was brought to the knowledge of this Court and vide order dated 10.06.2022, a detailed order has been passed and the respondents were called upon to file their counter affidavits. That order was communicated to the Chief Secretary, Home Secretary and Director General of Police of the State of Jharkhand. Pursuant thereto the respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavits. Looking into the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9, it transpires that respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9 are in possession of the plot in question. The photographs annexed with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9, contained in Annexure-7 suggest that there is six feet road on the southern side of the plot of the petitioner. The petitioner initiated the proceeding under Section 147 Cr.P.C. and for three dates, he has not appeared before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ranchi and, therefore, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate has dropped the proceeding. This is not a case that the petitioner is not having any place to ingress and outgress from the house. There are disputed questions of fact involved in this petition. When easementary right of any person is infringed, the Court is competent to exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. The arguments of Mr. Rahul Kumar Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, with regard to Bhuinhari land and the plot not purchased by the private respondents as per the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, are not required to be answered by this Court as the petitioner is having alternative remedy either by way of filing civil suit or petition under the provision of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. Rahul Kumar Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, with regard to Bhuinhari land and the plot not purchased by the private respondents as per the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, are not required to be answered by this Court as the petitioner is having alternative remedy either by way of filing civil suit or petition under the provision of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. There is no doubt that seeing the photographs annexed with the writ petition, this Court vide order dated 10.06.2022 issued the notice upon the respondents, however after their appearance, the facts, which are emerged, are disputed. 12. In Suraj Lamp & Industries Ltd. (supra), relied by Mr. Rahul Kumar Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was examining the loss of revenue (stamp duty and registration charges) and danger of generation of black money reducing the stamp duty on deeds of conveyance and Registration Act, 1908. Thus, this judgment is not helping the petitioner as prayer in this writ petition is only for calling upon the authorities to show cause as to why such thing has happened. This can only be agitated before the competent court of law, which can decide the disputed question of fact by way of oral and documentary evidence. 13. When a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal (supra) relied by Mrs. Vandana Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-State. 14. There are disputed questions of fact involved in this petition. The petitioner is having alternative remedy of ingress and outgress of the house. It is not a case to decide this issue under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. 16. It is open to the petitioner, if so advised, to avail remedy available under the law. If such petition is filed by the petitioner before the competent court, the observations made in this writ petition shall not be binding and such petition shall be decided on its own merit without prejudiced to this order.