This court held that it lacks jurisdiction under Article 226 to adjudicate disputes over title or adverse possession, which require evidence not possible in writ proceedings, thus dismissing the petition against demolition notices.
Writ petition disposed of; petitioner directed to file representation before Sub Divisional Officer within two weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P (C) No. 2687 of 2019
1.Md. Minhaj S/o Nizamuddin Ansari.
2.Md. Shakoor s/o Juthan Mian. 3.Azimuddin Ansari s/o Babu Jan Anari.
4.Tahir Mian s/o Hamid Ansari.
5.Ashim Ansari S/o Nizamuddin Ansari.
6.Taiyab Ansari @ Md. Taiyab Hussain, S/o Butu Mian.
7.Neyamat Mian S/o Julabi Mian. 8.Basarat Ansari @ Basarat Ali, S/o Julabi Mian. 9.Kadir Ansari @ Abdul Kadir s/o Shah Mohammad. 10.Hamida Khatoon w/o Zainul Ansari. 11.Israil Ansari s/o Lt. Ghafoor Mian. 12.Naresh Prasad Gupta s/o Shukhdeo Prasad .…… Petitioners
Versus
1.State of Jharkhand. 2.Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro. 3.Sub Divisional Officer, Bokaro. 4.Circle Officer, Nawadih, Bokaro. …… Respondents ---------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
---------- For the Petitioner : M/s A. Allam Sr. Adv. & Faisal Allam, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sahu (G.P-III) -----------
4/Dated: 2nd July, 2019
This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has sought for a direction restraining the respondent not to demolish the shops and houses of the petitioners without adhering to Bihar Land Encroachment Act, 1956 as the petitioners are running their shops for more than 30 years and by way of adverse possession to possess the said land without any hindrances but the authority has issued notice for removal of encroachment and as such the writ petition has been filed.
This Court after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner passed an order on 25.06.2019 allowing time to the petitioner to file document with respect to title of the property in question but no such supplementary affidavit has been filed annexing the said document.
This Court while going across the pleading made in the writ petition and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners has found by looking to the fact that petitioners are claiming title by way of adverse possession since they are running their shops for more than 30 years.
The question arise is of dispute over title and if there is no valid allotment order or no valid document which suggests the title of the petitioners and as such the question of adverse possession the declaration relating to that is to be proved by leading evidence which is not possible in the writ jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the prayer which has been made by the writ petitioner is not worth to be considered.
So far as contention that the petitioner is a rightful owner, this Court is not making any comment rather leaving it open to the petitioner to approach before the Sub Divisional Officer, Bokaro-respondent no.3 to satisfy the said authority whether the petitioners are the rightful owner of the property in question or not?
If the petitioners will file individual representation within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order before the Sub Divisional Officer, Bokaro-respondent no.3 will consider the matter in accordance with law within four weeks after filing of such representation.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Further action will depend upon the decision taken by the respondent authority.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Saket/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a complaint regarding determination of title by adverse possession can be decided in writ jurisdiction.
Whether the petitioners' claim of title derived from running shops for over 30 years warrants a direction in this proceeding.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Md. Minhaj and others
State of Jharkhand
Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro
Sub Divisional Officer, Bokaro
Circle Officer, Nawadih, Bokaro
Sujit Narayan Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
