Dismissed

Shanti Kumar Saraf v. Home Department

Jharkhand HC6 Jan 2016WPC/6853/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner sought removal of alleged illegal encroachment by police over land. The court observed that the petition raised disputed questions of title, noting the existence of prior civil proceedings. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed with liberty to approach the civil court.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to approach the civil court for determination of title.

Shanti Kumar Saraf Vs Home Department — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No. 6853 of 2013

¶2

Shanti Kumar Saraf, son of Late Madan Lal Saraf, resident ofnear Police Line, Daltonganj, Palamau ... ... Petitioner

¶3

... ... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Department of Home through Principal Secretary, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi

¶7

Senior Superintendent of Police, Daltonganj, Palamau

¶8

The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau

¶9

The Circle Officer, Daltonganj, Palamau … ... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr. N. K. Pasari, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Kumar, J.C. to A.G.

¶12

¶13

04/06.01.2016 Alleging illegal encroachment by the respondents over the land comprised under Plot No. 218, Thana No. 190, Survey No. 104, Khewat No. 1/5, area about 1 Bigha 12 Katha, the petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondents for removing the encroachment over the aforesaid land.

¶14

The petitioner has asserted that the land comprised in Plot No. 218, Thana No. 190, Survey No. 104, Khewat No. 1/5, area about 1 Bigha 12 Katha was purchased by his father from Sk. Vasi Mohammad and Sk. Vali Mohammad, who were registered owners of the land. The State of Bihar instituted a Title Suit seeking declaration of its right, title and interest over 0.81 acres of land in plot no. 217 and a portion of land in plot no. 218 admeasuring about 0.02 acres. The suit was decreed against which Title Appeal No. 11 of 1954 was instituted. The appeal was allowed vide judgment and order dated 25.05.1957 and challenge to the said order vide Appeal No. 1042 of 1957 was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 10.11.1959. The petitioner has asserted that the respondents have illegally encroached upon the aforesaid land and it is used as Parade

¶15

ground. It is stated that since the petitioner had shifted to Jaipur where his son is employed, he could not ascertain the actual date of encroachment by the police department. Aggrieved by the illegal encroachment by the police department, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶16

A counter-affidavit has been filed stating that the land under Plot No. 217 admeasuring 0.81 acres and under Plot No. 218 admeasuring 0.02 acres which were subject matter of Title Appeal No. 11 of 1954 are not a part of the police parade ground. It has been asserted that the aforesaid land is in possession of the petitioner and other raiyats. The claim of the petitioner over entire 1 Bigha 12 Katha land in Plot No. 218 has however, been disputed by the respondents.

¶17

From the aforesaid stand taken by the parties in the present proceeding, it is apparent that the writ petition involves disputed questions of title. I am of the opinion that the proper remedy for the petitioner is to approach the civil court. The petitioner himself has disclosed the previous proceeding before the civil court with respect to a part of the land allegedly purchased by his father through registered sale deed dated 04.10.1948.

¶18

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed however, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the civil court. The aforesaid liberty granted to the petitioner would not in any manner be taken as an expression of opinion on the claim of the petitioner over the land in question.

¶19

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

¶20

Tanuj/-

Shanti Kumar Saraf v. Home Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanti Kumar Saraf v. Home Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar Mandal Alias Vijay Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Collector Deoghar and Ors.

Yogendra Kumar Shyam Vs Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas

Central Coalfields Limited through Its General Manager Cum Project Officer Sri Ram Vinay Singh Vs Mines and Geology

Sri Tatanagar Goushala through Its Honorary Joint Secretary Sri Shrawan Kumar Debuka Vs Animal Husbandary Department

Ram Pravesh Sahu Alias Ram Prakash Sahu and Anr. Vs Kaleshwar Sahu and Ors.

Phulena Singh Vs the Central Bank of India through Its Authorised Officer and Anr.