VIVEK SARAWGI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in this writ application has prayed for the issuance of a direction restraining the respondents from demolishing the building structures, including the boundary wall, erected by the petitioner over the land bearing raiyati plot No. 615 and 616 within ward No. 18 Purani Piri Tola, Buti Road, Karamtoli, Ranchi.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the land under reference in this case bearing revisional survey plot No. 615 -616 (municipal survey plot No. 461) under khata No. 95, khewat No. 2, village, Hatma, P.S. Ranchi corresponding to M.S. No. 46, P.S. Hatma, (Ranchi), was purchased in the year 1963 by virtue of a sale deed registered and executed in favour of the petitioner's ancestor namely Manik Chand Sarawagi by the previous owner Maulvi Qamural Hoda with the existing house structures, boundary wall, trees and plants. The entire land measuring 49 decimals 167 sq ft, on a family partition held in 1995, came to be allotted to the exclusive share of the petitioner's father, late Surendra Kumar Sarawagi. Thereafter, the petitioner's father constructed two multistoried buildings over a portion of the aforesaid land in accordance with the building plan sanctioned by the Ranchi Regional Development Authority (RRDA). Subsequently, by virtue of a family settlement between Surendra Sarawgi and his grand son Vivek Sarawgi recorded by a deed of settlement dated 29.5.2000, the vacant piece of land in plot No. 615 measuring 11 katha 5 chhatak was allotted to the petitioner Vivek Sarawgi. Upon such settlement, the petitioner had got his name mutated in the revenue records pursuant to an order passed by the competent authority in Mutation Case No. 240 R.27/ 2004 -05 and the petitioner has been regularly paying rent for the same to the State of Jharkhand. The petitioner's name was mutated in the municipal records also and he has been paying taxes to the Ranchi Municipal Corporation. Since the boundary was which was originally existing suffered damage, the same used to be repaired from time to time.

(3.) BEING aggrieved, the petitioner moved this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 5240 of 2005 for quashing the aforesaid notice (annexure 3) issued by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation. Pending, disposal of the writ petition, this Court passed an interim order on 16.9.2005 staying the operation of the impugned notice. In spite of such notice, the respondent Municipal Corporation filed a counter affidavit in the aforesaid writ petition declaring that the boundary wall of the petitioner was demolished on 9.9.2005 i.e. prior to the passing of the interim order of stay. By considering the above statement as averred in the counter affidavit, this Court disposed of the aforementioned writ petition on the ground that since the purported encroachment had already been removed, no further order was required to be passed. The Court further observed that the petitioner was at liberty to take appropriate steps against the erring officers if the petitioner could establish that any such officer had committed contempt of Court and may also move before the court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate relief. The petitioner thereafter filed another writ petition vide WP No. 6306 of 2005 claiming compensation for damages and repairs of cost of the demolished boundary wall. This Court by order dated 28.3.2006 had disposed of the writ petition by holding that the dispute concerning right, title and interest over the land in question can not be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution.