SANTOSH MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the petitioner for seeking issuance of direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to remove the illegal encroachment from the Mouza-Gagi Hat, Thana No. 23, Plot No. 140, Khata No. 1, Petarbar, Bokaro measuring area about 5.33 acres of land and Kai-ser-e-Hind land bearing Plot Nos. 60, 115, 116, 117, 118, 123, 124, 125, 126, , 128, 129, 130, 141, 142, 277 and Mouza-Bundu bearing Khata No. 51, Plot Nos. 209, 118, 179, 180, 181, 182, 202, 183, 243, 244, 245, 248 measuring an area about 8 acres. The petitioner claims to be a social worker and a Member of Jan Sangharsh Morcha, Petarbar, Bokaro and claims to be responsible to raise the issues of the local people before the Government. The grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid land in question have been encroached by the illegal encroachers. According to the petitioner, due to rising of population of the local area, the land is required for expansion of the city and therefore, he seeks for eviction of the alleged illegal encroachers.

(2.) We have heard Mr. S.K. Mahto, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State of Jharkhand.

(3.) Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State has submitted that the land in question have been series of disputes regarding the settlement/zamabandi and also cancellation of the settlement. The learned counsel has drawn our attention to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent-State and submitted that no issue of public interest is involved in this writ petition and prays for dismissal of this writ petition. Having regard to the written averments filed in the counter-affidavit and the various disputes pending between the parties, moreso when the petitioner is not a party in any of the dispute between the parties before the various authorities and since, there is a dispute regarding the title of the property, we are of the view that the Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable and accordingly it is dismissed.