Ashwani Kumar Rajgharia son of Sri Jag Mohan Rajgharia, resident of Jhumri Telaiya, PO v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 1366 of 2012 Ashwani Kumar Rajgharia son of Sri Jag Mohan Rajgharia, resident of Jhumri Telaiya, PO- Gumo, PS- Telaiya, district- Koderma 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Versus … … Petitioner Koderma 2. The Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forest Division, Koderma 3. The Divisional Forest Officer, Koderma Division, Koderma 4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Koderma … … Respondents CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner For the Resp.-State
Legal Reasoning
“1. Rajgarhia is present. 2. Nath Shahdeo is also present. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had moved earlier before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2306 of 2
Arguments
--- : Mr. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Ms. Smita Kumari Rajgarhia, Advocate : Mr. Lal Gyan Ranjan Nath Shahdeo, Advocate --- 11/22.02.2023 Heard Mr. Narendra Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner along with Ms. Smita Kumari Rajgarhia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Lal Gyan Ranjan Nath Shahdeo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- State. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “For issuance of a writ or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Notification dated 02.01.1953 by which Forest Department is claiming the land of the petitioner and also for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the concerned respondents not to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioner and further hold that the plot in question do not find place in the Notification and accordingly modify the order dated 27th June, 2009 as the learned SDM, Koderma refused to pass any order in pursuant to the order dated 18.5.2005 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2306 of 2005 and returned the record and dropped the proceedings as there is no such particular direction in the order dated 27th June, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Koderma in Criminal Revision No. 56 of 2007.” On 08.02.2023, following order was passed: 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Smita Kumari Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Lal Gyan Ranjan
Decision
2005 and at that point of time, the proceeding under Section 144/145 Cr.P.C. was pending and the writ petition was disposed of directing expeditious disposal of the petition. She submits that the matter was ultimately decided in the year 2007 against which the petitioner had filed revision in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Koderma who had set-aside the order passed under Section 144 Cr.P.C., and no order of remand was passed. The learned counsel submits that the private property of the petitioner has been included in the notification dated 02.01.1953 and therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the said notification. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the property was included in the notification as back as on 02.01.1953 and merely because the petitioner has acquired the property through sale-deed, the same is not sufficient to hold that the property acquired by the petitioner through sale-deed is their private property. He has also submitted that the petitioner has appropriate remedy to get their title declared through a competent court of civil jurisdiction. He has also pointed out that on 18.05.2005, when the earlier writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2306 of 2005 was disposed of, at that point of time it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the plot in question is not mentioned in the notification and therefore, the question of declaring the land as protected forest, did not arise, although in the said writ petition also, the petitioner had prayed for quashing the notification dated 02.01.1953. 5. adjournment to examine the case further. 6. 7. Post this case on 22.02.2023 in the supplementary cause-list. Let this matter be treated as part heard.” Upon this, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks 5. Today, when the case is taken up, the learned counsel for the respondents has again reiterated that disputed question of title may not be decided in writ jurisdiction. 6. To this, learned counsel for the petitioner has responded by relying upon a judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1600 of 2020 (Popatrao Vyankatrao Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others) which arose out of a notice of public auction and has referred to paragraph 5 thereof in which paragraph 19 of an earlier judgement passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “ABL International Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. Of India Ltd. & Ors.” has been quoted. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Court entertaining a writ application is not always bound to relegate the parties to a suit and in an earlier decision reported in (1969) 3 SCC 769, the Hon’ble 3 Supreme Court had went to the extent of holding that in a writ petition if the facts require, even oral evidence can be taken. The learned counsel submits that the materials on record clearly show title in favour of the petitioner since 1908. 7. To this, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that there are disputed questions of title involved in the present case and in view of the notification dated 02.01.1953, the petitioner may have his title over the property declared through a competent court of civil jurisdiction. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this court is of the considered view that through this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the notification dated 02.01.1953 and is claiming title over the property involved in the present case. This Court finds that there are disputed questions of facts and law involved in the present case and therefore, this Court is not inclined to proceed any further in this writ petition. 9. However, it is observed that the petitioner may get his title declared through a competent court of civil jurisdiction. 10. At this, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is more than 70 years of age and some observation may be made for expeditious disposal of the suit itself, if so filed. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to expeditious disposal of the suit, if filed. 12. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is sufficient to observe that the respondents would cooperate with expeditious disposal of the suit, if filed, and the concerned court will keep in mind the advanced age of the petitioner while dealing with the suit. 13. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 14. 15. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. Pankaj (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)