CHUNILAL RACKY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an owner of the several plot numbers situated at villageJarad, Ramgarh, Thana No. 42, ParganaPalani, districtHazaribagh, as stated at Annexure3 to the memo of the petition and these properties are being encroached by the villagers and therefore, the respondents Government authorities must provide protection to the properties of the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent nos. 7 to 11 have encroached the property of the present petitioner and therefore, let a suitable direction may be given to the State authorities to protect the properties of the present petitioner, as stated in 'Schedule' at Annexure3 to the memo of the petition. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that one Mutation Case No. 12 of 2004 is going in the Court of the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur, Hazaribagh.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is unable to point out anything that how the petitioner is owner of the several plots, as stated in 'Schedule' at Annexure3 to the memo of the petition. There is not a single annexure which proves even prima facie owner of the properties, in question, of the petitioner and therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. Nonetheless, if the petitioner proves his ownership before any of the respondents authorities then only such prayer can be made of the protection of the properties of the petitioner. The petitioner is not owner of the properties, in question, even prima facie, looking to the memo of the petition and the annexures of the petition.

(3.) In view of the aforesaid submissions and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the petitioner is claiming ownership on the following plot numbers: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_101_TLJHAR0_2010Html1.htm</FRM> When this Court raised a query that how the petitioner is owner of the aforesaid properties, he is unable to establish any link with the aforesaid plot numbers. There is total failure on the part of the petitioner to establish that even prima facie the petitioner is an owner of the aforesaid bundle of lands. As per submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner one Mutation Case No. 12 of 2004 is going on in the Court of the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur, Hazaribagh. Learned counsel for the petitioner is making statement at bar that the aforesaid mutation case is for all the aforesaid plot numbers. Thus, it appears that still the name of the present petitioner is not mutated in the revenue entries for the aforesaid plot numbers. The petitioner is also unable to point out anything from the memo of the petition that the aforesaid all the plots are belonging to his father or to his grand father. Thus, the petitioner has miserably failed in pointing out before this Court as to how he is owner of the properties, in question and therefore, the prayer of the petitioner that the properties of the petitioner may be protected from being encroached or from being used by respondent nos. 7 to 11 is not accepted by this Court.