ANUGRAHIT MINZ Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Vandana Singh, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9 and Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, learned counsel for respondent no.10.

(2.) This petition has been filed for direction to the respondents to show cause as to under what circumstances, in spite to the notice and knowledge of the officials of the State, illegally the boundary wall has been constructed in front of the gate of the petitioner and no case of such obstruction has been instituted by the police.

(3.) Mr. Rahul Kumar Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the lawful owner of the land, measuring 5 Kathas under Plot No.1015 and measuring 7.5 Kathas under Plot No.1017, total land measuring 12.5 Kathas under Revisional Survey Khata No.234, Korha Toli, Village- Kokar, Thana No.196, Police Station- Sadar, District- Ranchi. The petitioner has purchased the aforesaid land by registered sale deed in the year 2008. He further submits that all residents of the locality were using ten feet wide road from corner of the north-east direction of the petitioner's land, running all through adjacent to the northern nala, for reaching the principal road. The petitioner was availing the easementary right of way through such road since past 45 years without any resistance from side or corner. He further submits that Plot No.1068, situated to the eastern side of the petitioner's land belongs to one Khaira Barla (respondent no.7) who is residing with his family members and he captured around 5 Kathas of said land, but as it never created any trouble for the residents of Plot No.1015 and 1017, hence nobody raised any objection. He also submits that forcefully boundary wall has been constructed in front of the petitioner's gate and the petitioner is not allowed to use the ten feet public road from the locality to reach the main road. He further submits that the petitioner has filed a case before the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ranchi under Sec. 147 Cr.P.C. in which a report is there, which suggests that the road was there. He also submits that subsequently the authorities have filed the report stating that the private respondents have purchased the land and the road in question is within the area of the private respondents. He further submits that the Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can interfere when any wrong is brought to the knowledge of the Court. He further submits that only by way of one stamp paper the land bearing Plot No.1068 was purchased by the private respondents without following due process of law as prescribed under the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. He also submits that the said land is Bakast Bhuinhari land. He further submits that the proceeding under Sec. 147 Cr.P.C. has been dropped by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ranchi which is the subject matter of the dispute, which is illegal. He relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Anr., [2011 (6) Supreme 737].