SHASHI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner initially, submitted that predecessor-in-title of the present petitioner was given the property, in question, on lease, in the Year, 1939 for 30 years. After the lease period was over for no reason, whatsoever, initially, it was not extended, but, subsequently, it was extended up to the Year, 1999. Again thereafter, it was not extended and, therefore, writ petition was preferred in the Year, 2006, and thereafter, despite several objections, the lease-period was extended by two separate lease documents, dated 18th December, 2007, as well as 2nd January, 2008 for further period of 30 years. The contention of the petitioner is that respondent No. 6 is encroaching upon the small part of the said land and, therefore, the petitioner approached the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, Daltonganj, who has executed a lease-deed and representation has also been preferred before the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, Daltonganj and it is prayed that the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, Daltongaj must dispose of the said representation.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that once the lease-deed is executed and if there is any encroachment or if the rights of the petitioner are interfered with by some private parties, the petitioner ought to have approached the concerned civil court, as per Section-15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, Daltonganj cannot decide the dispute between the parties. All that depends upon the facts of each and every case. How much land was given in the Year, 1939, on lease. Thereafter, for what area the lease was extended and actually where the respondent No. 6 is residing. All these questions involve a detail factual aspect to be established by the petitioner by cogent and convincing evidences before the civil Court and thereafter, only the rights of the parties can be decided and, therefore, petition may not be entertained by this Court.

(3.) Having heard learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the following facts and reasons: