PALAMAU DISTRICT BAR ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in this writ petition filed by the Palamau District Bar Association is for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 5, the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, to take a final decision on the petitioner 'sapplication for settlement of an extent of 0.67 acres of land in Plot No. 951 allegedly lying adjacent to the land held by the Association. It is contended that the application was kept pending and it was not being disposed of. The petitioner had earlier filed CWJC (PIL) No. 2843 of 1998 (R) and this Court had directed the Secretary, Revenue Department, and Government of Bihar, to take a final decision in the matter within a period of three months. No decision having been rendered pursuant to that direction, the petitioner was constrained to move this writ petition. The extent in question lies within the Court compound and according to the petitioner, the members of the Association were using it for accommodation of the lawyers, Advocate Clerks and the public in general. In the circumstances, the direction sought (sic) was liable to be issued.

(2.) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents No. 3 and 5, the Secretary, Revenue Department and the Deputy Commissioner, it is submitted that an extent of 0.05 acres had been given to the Palamau Bar Association and on that piece of land, an old building stands and it is being used by the Bar Association. Besides that, the petitioner Bar Association has unauthorisedly encroached upon 0.27 acres of land and had even put up unauthorized constructions thereon. Steps for removal of the encroachment in respect of that extent of 0.27 acres of land is liable to be taken and is being contemplated. In addition to that illegal encroachment, now the petitioner is claiming a further extent in Plot No. 951. It was an unauthorized attempt to annex the lands and that should not be countenances by this court in a so -called public interest litigation. Plot No. 951 has been used for putting up some stalls and some stalls have been settled to hotels and betel shopkeepers for the convenience of the public and also the members of the Bar. These shops are being settled on an annual basis and was being so done for a long time. The petitioner Bar Association had never been in possession of Plot No. 951 and it is not in possession of that plot. It has no right or possession over that plot. Its claim that it is in possession is denied. This is an attempt to try and grab this land and thereafter allot it to persons for putting up stalls so as to make financial gain. The land in question was a Qaiser -e -Hind land and it was so recorded in the last cadastral survey. It could not be dealt with by the Deputy Commissioner. It was not liable to be assigned to the petitioner Bar Association. Any direction in that regard would send a wrong signal to persons who do not respect law and who believe in encroaching into Government land unauthorisedly. The Bar Association did not, in fact, need this land. This writ petition was liable to be dismissed.

(3.) THERE is a dispute regarding the claim of possession made by the petitioner regarding 0.67 acres of land in Plot No. 951. It is pleaded that the petitioner Association has no possession over it, no right over it, and no control over it, though the petitioner claims that it is being used by it. It is also pleaded that plot is recorded as Qaiser -e -Hind land in the record of rights. There is also an allegation that the petitioner Association is in unauthorized occupation of 0.27 acres of land adjacent to 0.05 acres of land which alone it was permitted to use. Prima facie, the Association has not put forward any right over the 0.27 acres of land which is allegedly in its illegal occupation.