Teju Singh @ Teju Pd. Singh … v. 1. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Dhanbad 2. The
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 4414 of 2020 Teju Singh @ Teju Pd. Singh … … Petitioner Versus 1. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Dhanbad 2. The General Manager, Katras Area No. IV, M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad 3. The Estate Officer, Katras Area No. IV, M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad … … Respondents
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner For the Respondents ----- : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate : Mr. A.K. Mehta, Advocate Mrs. Pratibha Mahto, Advocate ----- Order No. 05 Dated: 10.06.2024 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing
Decision
letter dated 22.10.2019 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent no. 2 – the General Manager, Katras Area No. IV, M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad, whereby the petitioner’s representation dated 07.08.2019 seeking compensation and employment in lieu of taking possession of the land appertaining to Khata No. 32/12, Plot No. 359, Mouza-Nichitpur, Thana No. 240, District-Dhanbad (hereinafter referred to as the said land) by the respondent-BCCL has been rejected. Further prayer has been made for restraining the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner from the aforesaid land as well as to compensate him for changing the nature of the land and for doing the mining activity by the respondent-BCCL. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grandfather of the petitioner namely, Mohan Singh was Khewatdar of the land appertaining to Plot No. 359, Khata No. 32/12, Mouza- Nichitpur, measuring an area of 1.470 acres and he was in 1 possession of the said land. After vesting of zamindari, the occupancy right of the grandfather of the petitioner was recognized as an intermediary of ex-landlord under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and on the basis of M Form Case No. 53(V) of 57-58, the grandfather of the petitioner was recognized as raiyat. It is also submitted that jamabandi was opened in the name of grandfather of the petitioner and he also paid rent to the government. 3. It is further submitted that name of the petitioner has been recorded in the record of right prepared in course of revisional survey. The respondents preferred an application for correction in the record of right under the provision of Section 83(11) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 before the Settlement Officer, Dhanbad vide Case No. 134/05 against the petitioner, however, the Settlement Officer in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 87 of the Act, 1908, dismissed the said case of the respondents vide order dated 14.10.2009. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner earlier filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 721 of 2012 against his illegal dispossession from the said land and the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 27.06.2019 with a liberty to him to file fresh representation before the General Manager, Area No. IV, BCCL along with all supporting documents with a direction to the said authority to dispose of the said representation. The petitioner filed representation before the said respondent, however, the same has been rejected vide order 2 under Ref.IV/GM/EST/2019/1311 dated 22/25.10.2019. 5. I have perused the impugned order passed by the respondent no. 2 vide Ref.IV/GM/EST/2019/1311 dated 22/25.10.2019 and on perusal of the same, it appears that the State Government had settled 15.32 acres of land including the said land to the respondent-BCCL for mining and allied purposes vide Land Settlement Case No. 25(V)/81-82 and the possession of the land was also handed over to the BCCL on 17.05.1982. 6. It further transpires that during the settlement proceeding, an Aam Ishtahar was issued to the general public of Nichitpur village inviting objections against settlement of the government land in favour of BCCL, however, no objection was raised by the heirs of Mohan Singh. The petitioner has also not disputed the possession of BCCL on the said land, rather he has claimed that the possession of BCCL over the said land is illegal. The respondent-BCCL has claimed that the R.S Record of Rights in respect of R.S Khata No. 12 has been wrongly prepared in the name of the petitioner as he has not been in possession of the said land since 17.05.1982. 7. In the case of “Roshina T. Vs. Abdul Azeez K.T. & Ors.” reported in (2019) 2 SCC 329, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “9. In our considered opinion, the writ petition filed by Respondent 1 under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the appellant before the High Court for grant of relief of restoration of the possession of the flat in question was not maintainable and the same ought to have been dismissed in limine as being not maintainable. In other words, the High Court ought to have declined to entertain the writ petition in exercise of extraordinary 3 jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution for grant of reliefs claimed therein. 12. The question as to who is the owner of the flat in question, whether Respondent 1 was/is in possession of the flat and, if so, from which date, how and in what circumstances, he claimed to be in its possession, whether his possession could be regarded as legal or not qua its real owner, etc. were some of the material questions which arose for consideration in the writ petition. 13. These questions, in our view, were pure questions of fact and could be answered one way or the other only by the civil court in a properly constituted civil suit and on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties but not in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the High Court. 14. It has been consistently held by this Court that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of the disputes relating to property rights between the private persons. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of statutory authority is alleged. In such cases, the Court has jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions to the authority concerned. It is held that the High Court cannot allow its constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies under the general law, civil or criminal are available. This Court has held that it is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a civil suit or application available to an aggrieved person. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution being special and extraordinary, it should not be exercised casually or lightly on mere asking by the litigant. (See [Mohan Pandey v. Usha Rani Rajgaria, (1992) 4 SCC 61] and [Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal, (2003) 6 SCC 230].) 15. In our view, the writ petition to claim such relief was not, therefore, legally permissible. It, therefore, deserved dismissal in limine on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy of filing a civil suit by Respondent 1 (writ petitioner) in the civil court. 8. In the present case, the said land has been settled in favour of the BCCL and it is in possession of the same since 17.05.1982. As such, I am of the view that the possession of the said land cannot be ordered to be handed over to the petitioner 4 under writ jurisdiction particularly when the title of the petitioner over the said land has been disputed by the respondent-BCCL. 9. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to take appropriate recourse for redressal of the aforesaid grievance as permissible under law. Manish (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 5