Bimla Devi and Others vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

P.P. bhatt, J.—Learned Counsel for the Petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 5244 of 2005 and W.P.(C) No. 5918 of 2005 challenging the order No. 839 dated 31.08.2005 issued by Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, District Board, Dhanbad intimating them that they had encroached on the public land.

Thelearned Single Judge in impugned order dated 11.07.2011 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1932 of 2011 took note of this fact that this Court had already declined to grant any relief and recorded a finding that right and title claimed by the Petitioner could not be decided in the writ petitions and also that aggrieved party may move to get their claim decided by a competent authority or Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Even after noticing this fact, in impugned orders the learned Single Judge has proceeded to make several observations against the writ Petitioners, prejudicing the merit of even Civil Suit which has been filed after the decision in the writ petitions being W.P.(C) No. 5244 of 2005 and W.P.(C) No. 5918 of 2005.

Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the Appellants-petitioners themselves even after filing of the Civil Suit approached this Court and invited the finding against them which finding has been recorded by this Court in view of evidence produced non-else than by the Petitioners.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that if the writ petitions of the writ Petitioners were not maintainable in view of the finding recorded in the earlier round of litigation and the proper course was to approach the civil Court, for which, they have already filed a Suit, in that situation, the issues are required to be adjudicated by Civil Court and the finding recorded by this Court, available on record, since may seriously prejudice the final decision of the Civil Suit, the Petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the writ petitions itself so that they may produce evidence before the Civil Court and obtain the decision after the trial from the Civil Court.

Once it has been held in the earlier round of litigation between the parties that the Petitioner may approach the Civil Court, Single Judge should have dismissed the writ petition because of pendency of Civil Suit without any observation on the merit. In view of the submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioners-appellants, the writ petitions of the writ Petitioners are dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, both the L.P.A. Nos. 269 of 2011 and 270 of 2011 are also dismissed as infructuous.

However, it is made clear that since this Court has already, in earlier round of litigation, observed that claim of title and rights of the Petitioners can be decided only by the competent authority or by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, we are making it clear that any of the findings and observations made in the impugned orders dated 11.07.2011 will not prejudice the case of any of the parties nor it will favour anybody and the Civil Court will be free to decide the matter in accordance with law and in accordance with the evidence produced by the parties.

Learned Counsel for the writ Petitioners-appellants submitted that the Trial Court may be directed to decide the injunction application, which they have already filed. If the injunction application has been filed by the writ Petitioners-appellants, the Trial Court may expeditiously decide that injunction application.