HARIRAM KUMHAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Vijay Shankar Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. L. K. Lal, S.C. (L&C) for the Respondent -State.

(2.) PETITIONER , in this writ application has prayed for a direction commanding upon the Respondents to stop the plantation work over the Raiyati land of the petitioner and also for payment of compensation for the alleged illegal plantation, being carried out on his land.

(3.) COUNTER affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent -State, denying and disputing the petitioner's claim. It has been explained in the counter affidavit that the land referred to by the petitioner in the corresponding C.S. Khatiyan was recorded as G.M. Khas Kism Jangal Jhari and Parti Kadim respectively. It has been explained in the Revenue records, namely, the C. S. Khatiyan that the land under Plot Nos. 2324 and 2423 comprised a total area of 68 acre and 1.96 acre respectively, whereas the petitioner's claim is that he had purchased 3 acre and 2.15 acre. This according to the Respondents is totally incorrect. It is further explained that the lands over which the petitioner had advanced his claim, was found to have been acquired by the Forest Department way back in the year 1951. Upon the petitioner's representations, spot verification and measurement of the lands was carried out not only in presence of the petitioner but also in presence of the officials of the Revenue Department and the forest officials and the land belonging to the Forest department was demarcated and separated. It was found thereupon that while Plot No. 2423 belongs to the Forest Department, Plot No. 2324 and the other portions of land over which the petitioner had advanced his claim, did not belong to the Forest Department. Rather, it was beyond the Forest land. However, it was found that the land which was beyond the forest area, was actually not in possession of the petitioner. Rather, it was in possession of the villagers. Upon considering the fact that the petitioner was not in actual possession of the lands under reference, the petitioner's name in the Demand Register was cancelled. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Respondents that the petitioner had knowledge of such cancellation of his name in the Demand Register and as such, the dispute in fact involves disputed questions of facts and even otherwise, in the light of the fact that the petitioner's name has been cancelled from the relevant records, the petitioner's remedy lies not by virtue of this writ application but through the process of the civil court for declaration of his right and title over the lands, over which a dispute has genuinely been raised.