AMIT ROY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, referring to paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 4, submitted that the State respondents themselves has said that the matter can be remitted to the revisional authority to consider the entire matter again.

(2.) Mr. Srijit Choudhary, learned standing counsel appearing for respondents no. 1 to 4, submitted that in view of the documents which have been brought on record in this writ petition by the petitioners, it was said that the matter can be remitted. He further submitted that there is no clear finding about the possession of one or other party. He lastly submitted that ultimately such disputes involving question of right, title and possession can be decided only by the Civil court.

(3.) I find force in the submission of the State counsel that even if the matter is remitted, ultimately, it is only the Civil court which can decide the disputes with regard to right, title, interest and possession between the parties.