ORDER : 1. By filing this W.P. (PIL) the petitioners who are residents of Veer Kunwar Singh Colony, Post Office-Hinoo, Police Station-Doranda, District-Ranchi have prayed for the following reliefs: “(i) To direct the respondents, in particular respondent No. 5 (Accountant General, Jharkhand), not to block 12 feet wide PCC road by putting a wall, as is contemplated, going towards Veer Kunwar Singh Colony, P.O-Hinoo, P.S. Doranda, Town and District-Ranchi, as the same is the only road for ingress and egress of the residents of Veer Kunwar Singh Colony. (ii) To hold and declare that the respondent No. 2 has any power and jurisdiction to block the only road used by the public towards Veer Kunwar Singh Colony through A.G. Colony, Hinoo, Ranchi, as the same is being used by the residents of the same Veer Kunwar Singh Colony for about three decades. (iii) For any other appropriate relief/reliefs to which the petitioners are found to be entitled in the facts and circumstances of this case as also to do conscionable justice to the petitioners.” 2. After hearing sometimes this Court passed various directions and also appointed two Amici, namely, Mr. Ramit Satender and Ms. Shivani Kapoor, who have submitted a report. The findings are summarized here as under: (i) Presently the residence of the petitioners, who are residing at the northern end of the Veer Kunwar Singh Colony, can approach their house only through the A.G. Colony Road which is wide and motorable and has been marked as blue in the sketch map provided by the Respondent no. 4, i.e. Ranchi Municipal Corporation in its supplementary counter affidavit. It is also found by the Amici that the Veer Kunwar Singh Colony is a densely populated area having its main entrance from the Airport Road, Hinoo, which is wide and motorable and is being used by most of the residents of the Veer Kunwar Singh Colony and all the residents of Manitola Co-operative Housing Society, Hinoo. It is further reported that this main road is indicated in the orange in the sketch map provided by the Respondent No. 4 in its supplementary counter affidavit, which passes through Manitola Cooperative Housing Society, Hinoo and ends at the southern end of the AG Colony Boundary wall adjacent to Plot No. 1542. It is further reported that this main road is indicated in the orange in the sketch map provided by the Respondent No. 4 in its supplementary counter affidavit, which passes through Manitola Cooperative Housing Society, Hinoo and ends at the southern end of the AG Colony Boundary wall adjacent to Plot No. 1542. (ii) The Amici further report that the residences of the present petitioners are not connected to the aforesaid main road (marked in orange) as both the roads described above are parallel roads separated by Plot No. 1542 and 1546 falling in between. The alleged encroached area of the aforesaid plot has been highlighted in red ink in the sketch map provided by respondent No. 4 in its supplementary counter affidavit having marked as 1486-A. (iii) Plot No. 1486-B has also been highlighted as red in the sketch map provided by the Respondent no. 4 in its supplementary counter affidavit which forms part of the Manitola Housing Co-operative Society which touches the boundary wall of the A.G. Colony but is on the other side of the proposed road hence causing no hindrance for the proposed alternative road. The only hindrance for the proposed alternative road is the marked encroached area 1486-A as shown in the above said sketch map. 3. On the directions of the Court, the Amici visited the spot at 10.00 a.m. on 16.02.2023. The son of the petitioner no. 1, namely Abhishek Singh accompanied by his Amin and several other residents of the Veer Kunwar Singh Colony were also present at the site. Few residents of Manitola Co-operative Housing Society, Hinoo were also present. One Vakil Singh claiming himself to be the President of above said Society was also present with his son, who said they did not receive any notice for inspection nor were parties to the case filed by Satyadeo Singh and others who are residents of the Veer Kunwar Singh Colony. He claimed to be having dispute with Satyadeo Singh and his son in connection with Plot No. 1542 but no documents or details were provided. However, on request of the Amici he handed over a photocopy of the Map of Manitola Co-operative Housing Society, Hinoo which is annexed to the report submitted by the Amici. 4. He claimed to be having dispute with Satyadeo Singh and his son in connection with Plot No. 1542 but no documents or details were provided. However, on request of the Amici he handed over a photocopy of the Map of Manitola Co-operative Housing Society, Hinoo which is annexed to the report submitted by the Amici. 4. After physical inspection of the site with the officials it was gathered that the petitioner No. 1 claimed his ownership with respect to the Plot No. 1546 adjoining to the Plot No. 1486 just touching the boundary wall of the A.G. Colony including the marked encroached area, i.e., 1486-A. The documents to prove title were asked from the son of the petitioner no. 1 and after several requests, he brought a copy of the sale deed that was in possession of his Amin and they then agreed for its verification by getting it re-measured in presence of all including the Amin of the RMC as well as the Amin of the Circle Officer, Argora. However, the copy of any of the sale deed was not submitted by the son of the petitioner to the Amici. Thereafter, a re-measurement was undertaken by the Amin of the RMC and the Amin of the C.O. Argora in presence of several persons present there including the son of the petitioner no. 1 and his Amin. Upon measurement based on the village map, it was found that 13 feet land has been encroached by petitioner no. 1 on eastern side and 42 feet 10 inches on the western side which is presently in possession of the petitioner no. 1 bounded by the boundary wall, however, there is no construction over the same. The Government Amins were thereafter requested to prepare a map of the site with the necessary details in light of the measurement done, a copy of which was later provided which is annexed as Annexure-VIII. The Circle Officer, Argora was asked to produce the original before this Hon’ble Court on 17.02.2023 i.e., the date fixed for hearing on the Public Interest Litigation. 5. It is pertinent to mention that the map prepared by the Amin of the RMC and the Amin of the C.O. indicate the two parallel roads as described in detail in the aforesaid paragraphs. 5. It is pertinent to mention that the map prepared by the Amin of the RMC and the Amin of the C.O. indicate the two parallel roads as described in detail in the aforesaid paragraphs. As indicated from the perusal of the Map, only hindrance for an alternate motorable route other than that passing through the A.G. Colony for the petitioners is the area marked in red colour which happens to be the land encroached by the petitioner no. 1. 6. From such factual aspects the Amici reported that the fact gathered from the site inspection can be summarized as follows: (i) The road through the A.G. Colony is not the only road connecting the Veer Kunwar Singh Colony, there is another main road as well which is wide and motorable and is being used by most of the residents of the Veer Kunwar Singh Colony. (ii) It also appeared to the Amici that the encroachment made by the petitioner no. 1 which is marked in red i.e. Plot No. 1486-A in the attached map which is the hindrance for the proposed alternative road. (iii) It transpires that the aforesaid land marked in red belongs to the Accountant General. (iv) The area marked in green i.e. Plot No. 1486-B in the attached map is not a hindrance for the proposed alternative road. (v) The residence of the petitioners can be connected to the other main road (proposed alternative road), if the hindrance mentioned herein above is addressed. 7. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the petitioners themselves are violating the law as petitioner no. 1 has clearly encroached the lands of Accountant General. In this connection, encroachment proceeding has been initiated under the relevant law, so we are not inclined to entertain the writ application. Moreover, the essential prayer of the petitioners are in the nature of easementary right and easementary right cannot be decided in a writ jurisdiction as evidences have to be recorded and findings have to be given on disputed factual aspect. If the petitioners have any justifiable easementary right, then they may approach the competent civil court for redressal of their grievance. 8. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to proceed further in the instant Public Interest Litigation and the same is dismissed being devoid of merit and also not maintainable. 9. If the petitioners have any justifiable easementary right, then they may approach the competent civil court for redressal of their grievance. 8. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to proceed further in the instant Public Interest Litigation and the same is dismissed being devoid of merit and also not maintainable. 9. Grant urgent certified copies as per Rules.