Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 876 (JHR)

Ravindra Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2023-07-13

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2023
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Amritansh Vats the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Rashmi Lal, the learned A.C. to Sr. S.C.III appearing for the respondent State and Mr. Navin Kumar Jaiswal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.10. 2. This petition has been filed for direction upon the respondent authorities not to create any hindrance upon the land of the petitioner appertaining to Khata No.82 plot no.2048, Mouza-Hochar, Circle-Kanke, P.S. Kanke, District-Ranchi measuring an area of about 14 decimals which belongs to the petitioner. The prayer is also made to forthwith open the gate seal situated over the said land. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the said land is the ancestral and khatiyani land of the vender/seller of the property who are the successor of late Lokhnath Teli in whose name the khatiyan is maintained. He submits that the petitioner has purchased the said land in the year 2008 by registered deed. He submits that thereafter the Circle Officer has mutated the land in favour of the petitioner and the jamabandi was opened. He submits that the petitioner had moved before the appropriate authority but no action has been taken and that is why the present case has been filed. According to him, the writ petition is fit to be entertained and the appropriate order may kindly be passed for such prayer. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Jaiswal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.10 submits that the original land owner has already filed the Original Suit No.26 of 2023 for cancellation of said deed. Further it has been alleged that the said land was purchased in the year 2008, however, for mutation, the petitioner moved in the year 2022 which further cast doubt on the right, title and interest of the petitioner. He submits that the matter was also before the L.R.D.C (Annexure-12) wherein it has been disclosed that the respondent no.10 is in possession of the land in question and the mutation of the petitioner has been cancelled. On this ground, he submits that this petition may kindly be dismissed. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that there are disputed questions of fact involved in this writ petition and for that this Court may not entertain this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. On this ground, he submits that this petition may kindly be dismissed. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that there are disputed questions of fact involved in this writ petition and for that this Court may not entertain this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. In reply to it, Mr. Vats, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the LRDC order, an appeal is pending before the learned Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. 7. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the several annexures annexed to the writ petition and finds that mutation was obtained in the year 2022 and the purchased was said to be in the year 2008. The Original Suit No.26 of 2023 has been filed by the original land owners for cancellation of the said deed. The Court further finds that the possession has been declared in favour of the respondent no.10 by the L.R.D.C. as contained in Annexure-12 and the mutation of the petitioner has been cancelled by the said order that may be a subject matter before the appeal but there are disputed question of fact involved in the present writ petition. Further it is well settled that the High Court will not entertain any petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 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. A reference may be made to the case of CIT v. Chhabil Das Agarwal, (2014) 1 SCC 603 wherein at paragraph nos.15 and 16 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “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.” 8. Further, the Court finds that the law and order situation is a subject matter of the district administration and for that the High Court is not required to be entertain any petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it is the look out of the district administration to maintain the law and order. 9. In view of the above facts, reasons and the analysis, no relief can be extended to the petitioner. Accordingly, W.P.(Cr.) No.289 of 2023 is dismissed. 10. Pending petition, if any, also stands dismissed accordingly.