Kailash Modak vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereudner the order dated 05.07.2018 passed in Misc. Case No.01 of

2018 is under challenge whereby and whereunder the representation filed by the petitioner in terms of the order passed in W.P.(C) No.4820 of 2014

has been rejected, holding therein that the petitioner has failed to substantiate his title over the land in question.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to impress upon the Court by showing title over the land in question by virtue of deed of sale as contained

in Annexure-1 and thereafter the land in question has come in possession of the petitioner on the ground of inheritance. He has relied upon the rent

receipt annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition.

The grievance of the petitioner is that since the date of transfer the predecessor of the petitioner are in possession of the land in question but the

Forest Department exceeding its jurisdiction has encroached upon the land, therefore the petitioner has been compelled to file writ petition being W.P.

(C) No.4820 of 2014 praying therein that the land has illegally been taken from his possession by the State authority without initiating any proceeding

under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and, therefore no compensation has been made. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed an order in W.P.

(C) No.4820 of 2014 by disposing of on 20.07.2017 giving liberty to the petitioner to file representation along with relevant documents before the

Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad who on such representation shall pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

According to the petitioner he has made representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad along with relevant documents who has passed an

order on 05.07.2018 whereby the said representation has been rejected but without appreciating the documents produced before the said authority in

pursuance to the order passed by this Court.

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the land in question has been transferred in favour of the petitioner by virtue of

deed of sale executed on 05.11.1955 by one Ram Chandra Modak in favour of Balhari Modak who is the father of the petitioner and since the said

deed was of his predecessor in interest, he is in possession of the land in question and is making payment of the rent and as such if the State authority

has any intention to acquire the land a proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to be initiated but without doing so the land has been occupied

by the State authority without making payment of any compensation to the petitioner and, as such appropriate direction may be passed either directing

the concerned authority to pay compensation or restore possession of the land in favour of the petitioner.

Learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the order impugned dated 05.07.2018 needs no interference since well reasoned order has

been passed basing upon the relevant documents produced by the petitioner which is duly been appreciated by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad.

His contention is that the petitioner is relying upon a sale deed executed on 05.11.1955 but by going through recital of the said deed of transfer it is

reflected that perpetual lease has been made and further petitioner is claiming title on the basis of rent receipts, according to him, for claiming the title,

relevant documents substantiating the title, needs to be produced by the petitioner but the deed of transfer dated 05.11.1955 although has been

produced before the authority along with rent receipt but the said documents have been disputed by the respondents placing reliance upon order dated

04.07.2018 passed by the District Settlement Officer, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder the land in question is the subject matter of Hal Survey

wherein the same land has been shown as land of the Agriculture Department of the State of Biahr.

It has been contended that the said land has been acquired by the State Government by way of L.A. Case No.1 of 1958-59 in favour of the

Agriculture Department and as such now the absolute title of the said land is upon the Agriculture Department and, therefore, is serious question of

dispute over the title and as such the same can be adjudicated before the competent court of civil jurisdiction.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the rival submissions it is evident from the material available on record including the

impugned order wherein the submission of the petitioner as also the Agriculture Department has been referred, wherefrom it is evident that the

petitioner is claiming title on the basis of deed of sale executed on 05.11.1955 while the Agriculture Department is claiming title over the said land by

virtue of acquisition of land on the basis of L.A. Case No.1 of 1958- 59 and as such there is serious dispute over the land in question.

The impugned order further reflects that the petitioner is claiming title on the basis of deed of transfer dated 05.11.1955 and through the various rent

receipts but the same has been rejected by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad on the ground that the rent receipt is not sole document to prove title

if not corroborated by other substantiated documents.

It is settled position of law that the writ Court is not to adjudicate the title of land by giving declaration in favour of a party. In a disputed case like this,

a declaration is required and the same is only possible by leading evidence which can be done if the party will approach before the competent court of

civil jurisdiction.

Since serious dispute over the title of the land in question is involved, therefore, this Court refrains itself from interfering with the issues under Article

226 of the Constitution of India.

In view thereof, the writ petition is dismissed.