RISHI AJAT SHATRU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned counsel for both the sides.

(2.) The encroachment proceedings are pending, which were challenged before the learned Single Judge on two grounds: (i) that the encroachment proceedings are not maintainable in respect of Chhapparbandi land and (ii) that having abandoned the suit instituted by the State for eviction, it was not open to the State Government to initiate encroachment proceedings.

(3.) According to law, if the subordinate authority before whom proceedings are pending does not have jurisdiction to conduct those proceedings or if the proceedings are not maintainable in law, which again, in turn, would affect the jurisdiction of the authority to conduct those proceedings, a writ of prohibition can be issued and normally should be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, if the maintainability of the proceedings or jurisdiction of the subordinate authority is debatable or the proceedings are alleged to be not strictly in accordance with law, writ of prohibition will not be issued and the question will be required to be decided by the authority before whom such proceedings are pending, to which proceedings the parties have acquiesced by filing the reply etc.