Ayodhya Pandey vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

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.S- Simaria, 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.

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 Pandey- respondent No.9 submitted an application to the respondent No.4 informing the 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 hindrance in the ongoing construction work over the disputed land which is also the

subject matter of this case. Hence, the present writ petition.

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.

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.

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 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.

The present writ petition being devoid of any merit is, accordingly, dismissed.