MAHENDRA VISHWAKARMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the order passed by the Certificate Officer, Baghmara, Distt. Dhanbad, has unnecessarily interfered with the title of the present petitioner upon the property, in question, especially, when the title suit filed by Respondent No. 5 being Title Suit No. 58 of 2008, is pending before the Sub Judge -I, Dhanbad. Even injunction application preferred under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 of Code of Civil Procedure is pending before the trial court and has not yet been decided in favour of Respondent No. 5, who is plaintiff in The Suit No. 15 of 2008. Thus, the Circle Officer, Baghmara, District -Dhanbad, who has granted permission of construction upon the suit property is nothing, but, an interference with the justice delivery system. Revenue Officer has no power, jurisdiction and authority to decide title of the property, in question.

(2.) IT is also vehemently submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of the property and permission of construction has been given to Respondent No. 5 by the Circle Officer, Baghmara, District -Dhanbad vide order dated 4th' of January, 2008, Annexure - 7 to the memo of petition and, therefore, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner mainly for the reasons that Respondent No. 5 is claiming title and ownership upon the property. When his right is in belligerent stage, no permission of construction could have been given by the Circle Officer, Baghmara, District -Dhanbad, otherwise, it tantamounts to a decision upon the title of 10/5/2014 Page 10 Birendra Kumar Singh Versus State Of Jharkhand the property. It also tantamounts to an irreparable loss to the present petitioner to the effect that constructed property can be sold away by the Respondent No. 5 and if the suit filed by respondent No. 5 is dismissed, peaceful and vacant possession cannot be obtained by the petitioner. This aspect of the matter has also not been appreciated by the Circle Officer, Baghmara, Distt. Dhanbad.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the Respondent No. 5, who is a contesting respondent. It is submitted by him that it is true that respondent No. 5 has filed Title Suit No. 15 of 2008, and in an injunction application preferred by respondent No. 5, who is plaintiff in the suit under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure is pending and in that matter, notice has also been issued. In fact, the present petitioner is not owner of the property, in question. Originally, one Shri Mewa Lal Mistry and Munsi Lal Mistry were the original owners and, as stated in the plaint, especially in Paragraph Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, respondent No. 5, being a grandson of Mewa Lal Mistry, is an owner of the property, in question, whereas the petitioner is not at all, a legal heir neither of Mewa Lal Mistry nor of Munsi Lal Mistry and, therefore, the order passed by the Circle Officer, allowing construction of the suit property is absolutely true, correct and in consonance with the facts of the case and, therefore, this petition deserves to dismissed.