Dismissed

Ram Brichha Mahto v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. And Ors.

Jharkhand HC4 Sept 2018WPC/4095/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking compensation and employment due to encroachment and mining on 33.91 acres of farming land held in dispute. The Court held that disputed questions of title and interest prevent writ jurisdiction and dismissed the petition with an observation that the petitioner may seek declaration elsewhere.

What did the court decide?

Direction for payment of compensation and employment to dependant was denied as the subject land has disputed title.

Ram Brichha Mahto Vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. And Ors. — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 4095 of 2009

¶3

Ram Brichha Mahto, Son of Late Nathuni Mahto, Resident of Sharsha Pahadi, P.O. and P.S. Chirkunda, District Dhanbad.

¶4

… … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Bharat Coaking Coal Ltd., through its C.M.D., Koyala Bhawan, Koyala Nagar, P.O. Koyalanagar, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad.

¶7

General Manager (Estate), Bharat Coaking Coal Ltd., Koyala Bhawan, Koyala Nagar, P.O. Koyalanagar, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad.

¶8

Area General Manager, Area no. 12, Chanch Victoria, P.O. & P.S. Barakar, Dist. Burdhwan (W.B.)

¶9

General Manager (Personnel), Bharat Coaking Coal Ltd., Koyala Nagar, Dhanbad.

¶10

Senior Estate Officer, Area no. 12, Chanch Victoria, P.O. & P.S. Barakar, Dist. Burdhwan (W.B.).

¶11

General Manager (Estate), Bharat Coaking Coal Ltd., …

¶12

Koyalanchal, Dhanbad. … Respondents

¶13

State of Jharkhand

¶14

Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad.

¶15

District Executive Officer, Dhanbad-cum-Bokaro, Department of Land and Revenue, Govt. of Jharkhand.

¶16

10.District Land Acquisition Officer, Department of Revenue, Govt. of Jharkhand, Dhanbad.

¶17

11.Block Development Officer, Department of Land & Revenue, Govt. of Jharkhand, Dhanbad.

¶18

12.Circle Officer, Department of Land & Revenue, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nisra, Dhanbad.

¶19

… … Performa Respondents

¶20

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶21

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Mohan Kr. Dubey, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ashish Kr. Thakur, A.C. to S.C. (L. & C.)

¶22

¶23

03 /04.09.2018 Heard Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶24

2. Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- State.

¶25

3. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondent- Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.

¶26

4. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “For a direction upon the respondent no. 2 to forthwith make payment of compensation and for providing employment to the dependant of the

¶27

¶28

petitioner against his 33.91 acres of farming land which has been encroached upon by the respondent BCCL and upon which mining activity since 1993 is being carried on without acquiring the same in accordance with law and without its transfer to BCCL by the State Govt.”

¶29

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the property involved in this case was acquired through Sada Hukumnama of 28.10.1941 and there is a rival claim on the basis of a registered sale-deed dated 17.08.1960. He submits that the petitioner has right, title and interest over the property which has been encroached upon by the respondent- B.C.C.L. and upon which mining activity is going on since 1993.

¶30

6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- State submits that there are rival, disputed and conflicting claims over the property which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction and accordingly, he submits that the dispute in connection with the rival claim may not be decided under writ jurisdiction.

¶31

7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, this Court finds that the disputed questions of right, title and interest over the property are involved in this case and therefore, the point involved in this case cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. This Court further finds that the petitioner is claiming compensation in connection with the property involved in this case whose title is disputed.

¶32

8. Accordingly no relief as prayed for by the petitioner can be granted in this writ petition, hence, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶33

9. However, it will be open to the petitioner to get his right, title and interest over the property declared in accordance with law .

¶34

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶35

Pankaj

Ram Brichha Mahto v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Brichha Mahto v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. And Ors.

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 Singh Vs Bokaro Steel Plant S.A.I.L.

Baikunth Kalindi Alias Baikunth Dome Vs Water Resources Department

Amar Kumar Mandal Vs B.M.,New India Insurance Co.Lt

Malti Devi Vs State of Jharkhand through Central Bureau of Investigation CBI Ranchi

Ram Charitar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Dil Muhammad Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.