General Manager, namely Arun Kumar Jha [General Manager (In-charge) Rajmahal Project, ..... Dhankuna, Godda v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(Cr.) No. 258 of 2017 General Manager, namely Arun Kumar Jha [General Manager (In-charge) Rajmahal Project, ..... Dhankuna, Godda. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ..... … Respondents --------
Legal Reasoning
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ : : : ------ 08/ 10.08.2023 Heard Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel appearing for the Mr. Rajesh Lala, Advocate. Mr. Ravi Kerketta, S.C.-VI. Mr. D.K. Chakraverty, Advocate. For the Petitioner For the State For the Resp. No. 7 petitioner, Mr. Ravi Kerketta, learned S.C.-VI, appearing for the State and Mr. D.K. Chakraverty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 27.02.2017, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mahagama (Godda), in Cr. Misc. Application No. 08/2016-17. Prayer has also been made for quashing of the order dated 17.02.2016, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda to SDM, Mahagama (Godda) for initiation of a proceeding. 3. Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a chunk of land was acquired by the ECL management, upon which, boundary wall was erected and the residential quarters have been made by the ECL Management for residing of their employees. He submits that the dispute is with regard to a road, which is coming within the domain of the ECL Management and by the impugned action, the District administration has declared it as a general road. He submits that the Deputy Commissioner, Godda by letter dated 17.02.2016, on receipt of suo motu letter dated 30.01.2016 from SDM, Godda, directed the SDM, Mahagama to enquire the matter and after hearing the parties to take appropriate action in accordance with law. He further submits that pursuant to that Cr. Misc. No. 08 of 2015-16 was instituted in the court of SDM, Mahagama. He further submits that the said SDM, Mahagama has called upon a report from the Circle Officer, stating therein that whether easement problem is there or not. He further submits that pursuant to that, the C.O. has submitted a report, which is contained in Annexure-3, stating therein that 0.13 acre of land has been acquired by the ECL management, over which, the boundary wall has been erected and it was further reported for providing road to Ashutosh Chakraverty through the general road. He -2- further submits that thereafter the impugned order dated 27.02.2017 has been passed by the learned SDM, Mahagama holding that Dag No. 32/156 is being used by the ECL Management and finding has been given by the learned SDM that the description of the land in question is not clear, however, the same is being utilized by the ECL Management as well as by the villagers as a road. In these backgrounds, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the easement question is there, that can only be decided by the competent Civil court and the learned SDM has wrongly passed the order. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Kerketta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State submits that the land in question is a Government land, which is being used for the village road and the ECL Management has encroached the said land as the same has not been acquired by the ECL and to buttress his argument, he draws the attention of the court towards page-61 of the counter affidavit, which is the documents relates to one L.A. Case. He further submits that the inquiry report of the CO, Mahagama has contained in Annexure-E, wherein it has been recorded that boundary wall has been put by the ECL Management and thereafter the roads have been blocked. He further submits that for illegal encroachment upon the Government land, the ECL Management was addressed by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda by letter dated 25.04.2015, as contained in Annexure-G to the counter affidavit. In view of the above, he submits that this is the fact and the learned SDM, Mahagama has rightly passed the order. 5. Mr. Chakraverty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7 submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the learned SDM has rightly passed the order. He submits that the respondent No. 7 has only written a letter to the Hon’ble Chief Minister, on the basis of that the Government has proceeded suo motu and the government has found the illegality in the said road, that’s why this order has been passed. 6. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the court has gone through the materials on record including the annexures annexed with the writ petition as well as the counter affidavit, filed by the respondents-State. It is an admitted fact that certain area of the land was acquired by the ECL Management for construction of the colony of ECL employees. The application was filed before the Chief Minister for blocking of the road, subsequently, the -3- Deputy Commissioner has referred the matter to the SDM, Mahagama to enquire into the same allegation. Thereafter the report was called for, wherein the Circle Officer has reported that the ECL Management has constructed the boundary wall, however, the general road has also blocked. In view of this background, the learned SDM, Mahagama has passed the order. The court finds that the documents annexed with the counter affidavit filed by the respondents-State, contained at Page-61, 3.14 acre land was shown as general road and the report of the Circle Officer at Page-65 (Annexure-E) of the counter affidavit further suggests that the general road has been blocked and the road of Ashutosh Chakraverty has also been blocked. The finding of the SDM, Mahagama in the final order has come that the land in question, which is in dispute or not the same is not clear and the said land is being used by the ECL Management and also by the villagers, as a road and pursuant to that, the direction has been issued to the ECL Management to allow the first party. 7. In view of the above backgrounds, it transpires that disputed questions of fact are involved in this writ petition and the documents annexed with the counter affidavit suggests that for 3.14 acre of land, the ECL Management was addressed by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda, as contained in Annexure-G to the counter affidavit with regard to encroachment. Such disputed questions of fact cannot be a subject matter of the writ petition and the remedy is elsewhere by way of filing the appropriate petition before the competent court of civil jurisdiction by any of the aggrieved parties. 8. Accordingly, no relief can be extended to the petitioner, as such, this petition is dismissed. 9. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner and the respondents to avail the alternative remedy by way of filing the appropriate suit for such a declaration. Amitesh/- (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)