Dismissed

Ayodhya Pandey v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Jharkhand HC23 Feb 2021WPC/2800/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the Deputy Collector's order stopping construction on disputed coparcenary land. The court held the officer lacked jurisdiction to intervene in title disputes, rendering the order void ab initio, and dismissed the writ.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; direction for stopping construction denied as the underlying order was void.

Ayodhya Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its… — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(C) No. 2800 of 2020

¶4

Ayodhya Pandey ….. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi

¶7

The Secretary, Land Reforms and Revenue Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶8

The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Ranchi

¶9

The Circle Officer, Simaria, Chatra

¶10

The Officer-in-charge, Simaria Police Station, Chatra

¶11

Dawrka Pandey

¶12

Dinbandhu Pandey

¶13

Saroj Pandey

¶14

Tapeshwar Pandey

¶15

Virendra Pandey

¶16

Gayanath Pandey ….. Respondents ----- CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶17

¶18

For the Petitioner: Mr. Debarsi Mondal Mr. Ankit Apurva For the State: Ms. Priti Priyamvada, A.C to G.P-V -----

¶19

05/23.02.2021 The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent No.4 not to allow the private respondents to carry out any construction work and also not to make any financial transaction with respect to the land appertaining to Khata No. 01, Plot No. 551, Mouza-Tutilawa, P.SSimaria, Thana No. 167, District-Chatra, measuring an area of about 18 decimals as the said land is a coparcenary property. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent No.5 to provide protection to the petitioner and his kith and kin including the portion of the property falling under his share as against the respondent No.10.

¶20

The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the petitioner’s father, namely, Shiv Tahal Pandey owned and possessed total 12.19 acres of the land which was also recorded in Register-II. After the death of the recorded tenant, Jamabandi of the said land was opened in the names of his five sons including the petitioner. The respondent No.10 sold his entire share of the land, except 2.5 decimals, beside the national highway and now he wants to grab the aforesaid land measuring an area of 18 decimals raising boundary wall over the same. One of the petitioner’s brothers, namely, Tapeshwar Pandeyrespondent No.9 submitted an application to the respondent No.4 informing the

¶21

¶22

misdeeds and malafide intention of one of his brothers, namely, Dwarka Pandey-respondent No.6 and Saroj Pandey-respondent No.8-son of respondent No.6. The petitioner also submitted an application before the respondent No.4 on 27.12.2019 requesting him to pass an appropriate order for not carrying out any construction work over the said land whereupon the respondent No.4 directed the respondent No.5 to make an investigation to find out the real fact with respect to the said land. Accordingly, an investigation was made by the police officials of Simaria Police Station and a report to that effect was submitted stating that a dispute was running amongst the petitioner and his brothers with respect to the said land. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 passed an order to stop the ongoing construction work over the said land till settlement of the dispute. The respondent No.8 also filed Miscellaneous Case No. 06 of 2019-20 before the respondent No.4 to issue LPC which was disposed of on 30.08.2019 holding that since the matter involved title of the land, it was beyond the jurisdiction of his Court. Accordingly, the parties were directed to approach the competent Civil Court. Thereafter, the respondent No.6, through his sons, namely, Dinbandhu Pandey and Saroj Pandey (the respondent Nos. 7 & 8 herein), filed Miscellaneous Case No. 61 of 2019-20 before the respondent No.3 challenging the order dated 30.08.2019 passed by the respondent No.4 in Miscellaneous Case No. 6 of 2019-20 whereupon the respondent No.3 issued a notice on 14.01.2020 directing the petitioner and his other three brothers, namely, Tapeshwar Pandey, Virendra Pandey and Gayanath Pandey to remain present along with all relevant documents on 31.01.2020. During the pendency of Miscellaneous Case No. 61 of 2019-20, the respondent No.4 himself, vide order dated 15.06.2020, amended his previous order dated 27.12.2019 and vacated his earlier order of stopping the construction work over the said land. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra for taking immediate measures to stop the construction work over the said land being carried out by the respondent No. 10. However, Simaria Police Station issued a notice to the petitioner not to create any

¶23

¶24

hindrance in the ongoing construction work over the disputed land which is also the subject matter of this case. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.4 has the authority to settle the dispute with respect to the property falling within his jurisdiction within the four corners of law. The dispute with respect to the said land is not for adjudication of title, rather the same is only limited to disposing of different chunks of the land by the coparceners of the petitioner and to restrain them from doing so for the time being. On the one hand, the respondent No.4 has touched the point of dispute with respect to the land in question, on the other hand, he has observed that he has no jurisdiction to look into the said matter.

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondents-State submits that the respondent No.4 had no jurisdiction to pass any order preventing or allowing anyone to go to the land under dispute, rather the said power is vested with the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chatra in case of existence of apprehension of breach of peace. The dispute with respect to partition of share and illegality of registered sale deed(s) can only be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court. The respondent No.4 can neither usurp the jurisdiction of the Civil Court nor can adjudicate the dispute regarding coparcenary right, title and possession over the land in question. It is further submitted that the order dated 27.12.2019 was earlier passed by the respondent No.4 in an administrative capacity with a view to maintain peace and harmony, but he was not competent to pass any order preventing or allowing anyone to go to the land in question. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 15.06.2020 passed by the respondent No.4, he should have raised the matter before the respondent No.3 where the matter was pending.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. It appears that earlier the petitioner had made an application before the respondent No.4 on 27.12.2019 stating that a case was pending in the Court of the respondent No.3 and as such till disposal of the said

¶28

¶29

case, a direction may be issued for stopping any construction activity over the said land and on the said application itself, the respondent No.4 made a note to the effect of stopping any construction activity over the said land with immediate effect till any final decision is taken in the matter. The said order was not passed by the respondent No.4 by initiating any proceeding under law. Subsequently, on 15.06.2020, the earlier order of stopping construction work over the said land was revoked/cancelled. Thus, I am of the view that the earlier order passed by the respondent No.4 was itself non-est in the eyes of law as he had no jurisdiction to pass any such order of stopping construction work over the land in question on the ground of pendency of a case before the respondent No.3, rather it was only the respondent No.3, who could have passed an order in accordance with law. Since the earlier order itself was void ab-initio, the petitioner cannot be allowed to take benefit of note dated 27.12.2019 made by the respondent No.4 in his application. 6. The present writ petition being devoid of any merit is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶30

Satish/-

Ayodhya Pandey v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayodhya Pandey v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

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

Anil Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rameshwar Prasad Alias Rameshwar Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Fatema Bibi Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Rural Development Department

Ms Jai Bajrang Walee Stone Works through Its Proprietor Prakash Chandra Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhakat Enterprise through Its Proprietor Ajit Bhagat Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Kedarnath Lal Das Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary