Samdhari Devi vs State of Jharkhand And Ors

The present case is taken up through video conferencing.

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to restore the possession of the land pertaining to khata no. - 15, plot no. 441 measuring an area of 13 decimals, khata no.- 13, plot no. 442 measuring an area of 26 decimals, khata no. 15, plot no. 441/A measuring an area of 12.5 decimals and khata no. 40, plot no. 365/A measuring an area of 12 decimals at Mouza- Jhargobindpur, P.S. Gamharia No. -119, Anchal Gamharia, District- Seraikella-Kharsawan (hereinafter to be referred as "the said land") in favour of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased the said land by way of different sale deeds. After purchase of the said land, the same were mutated in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner despite having valid title over the said land has been dispossessed forcefully by the respondent no.9 (Usha Martin Company, Seraikella). After forceful occupation of the said land by the respondent no.9, the petitioner filed representation on 29.08.2017 along with supporting documents before the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharsawan (the respondent no.3) requesting inter alia for restoring possession of the said land in her favour by removing the unauthorized occupant, however the same has not been responded as yet.

Learned A.C. to G.A.-IV submits that the dispute raised in the present writ petition is purely civil in nature and as such the present writ petition is not maintainable.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the content of the writ petition.

The case of the petitioner is that she purchased the said land during the period between 1986-1990 and the same were duly mutated by the concerned circle officer. It has also been contended by the petitioner that corrections slips in relation to the said land were also issued in her favour. She also paid the rent for few years and in lieu thereof the rent receipts were also issued to her.

On perusal of the entire writ petition along with its annexures, it appears that the petitioner has not stated as to when she has been dispossessed from the land in question at the instance of the respondent no.9. The date of dispossession is an important factor to determine as to whether the petitioner has been dispossessed at the instance of the respondent no. 9 after purchase of the said land or the said land was already in possession of the respondent no.9 since before the petitioner purchased the said land. Otherwise also, the dispute raised in the present writ petition is completely civil in nature which requires factual determination on the issue involved. Hence, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The same is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is however at liberty to take alternative recourse on the present issue as provided under law. It is also observed that the dismissal of the writ petition shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner before any alternative court/forum.