MAMUN ALI Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 624 of 2013 whereby the writ petition preferred by this appellant has been dismissed. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this appeal mainly for the reason that earlier also this appellant had preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1850 of 2012 and the same was disposed of by giving some direction vide order dated 13th August, 2012. Thereafter, a contempt petition being Contempt Case (Civil) No. 1008 of 2012 was preferred which was also disposed of vide order dated 11th January, 2013. Thereafter, this appellant preferred one more writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 624 of 2013 ventilating therein his grievance that the representation preferred by this appellant (original petitioner) before the respondents has not yet been decided and the enquiry already initiated by the respondents is yet to be completed.

(2.) IT is contended by the counsel for the appellant that the land under this case was acquired in the year 1962 and the appointments were given to the land losers. This appointment was given to some persons in the year, 2010 by the respondents without appreciating the fact that the present appellant is the owner of the property, which was acquired, being plot No. 24, Khata No. 34 in Village -Koihara, Thana No. 150, District -Hazaribagh.

(3.) IT appears that there is a dispute between the persons who are given appointment by the Public Sector Undertaking (Central Coalfields Limited) and this appellant. The dispute appears to be about the ownership of the land in question because the land losers have already been given appointment by the respondents as per the verification of the documents made by the respondents. If the appellant is still contesting that he is owner of the property in question, then the said issue cannot be decided directly in the superior courts. It ought to have been decided by the court as per Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Civil Suit has to be filed for deciding the dispute regarding the property in question and if the appellant succeeds, then only he can ventilate his grievance before the Central Coalfields Limited. Moreover, looking to the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 6.5.2013, no error has been committed in the said order in deciding the issue between the parties mainly for the reason that the persons who are given appointment have not been joined as party -respondents in the writ petition and moreover, there is inter se dispute between the parties relating to the claim over the land in question which was acquired in the year 1962. In view of this fact and also looking to the order passed in the earlier contempt petition being Contempt Case (Civil) No. 1008 of 2012, we see no reason to entertain this L.P.A. as there is no error committed by the learned Single Judge while passing the order dated 6th May, 2013 in W.P.(C) No. 624 of 2013. In view of this fact, this Letters Patent Appeal is hereby dismissed.