Sarfaraz Ansari, s/o. Ashraf Ali vs C.M.D., C.C.L., Darbhanga House, Ranchi

Deepak Roshan, J

Heard the parties.

In the instant Writ application petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner and take action against respondent no.6 who is working in C.C.L. Area Pundi  Project  on  a  false  paper  showing  himself  as  a  land  loser  in place  of  petitioner  and  further  to  pay  a compensation  for  the  land pertaining to Thana No. (Mandu) 114, Khata no. 119 for which the petitioner is legally entitled as he is a Khatiyani Raiyat.

The case of the petitioner is that his land appertaining to Khata number 119, area = 3.81 acres (three acres and eighty-one decimal), was acquired by the respondents for Pundi Project, CCL Kuju area. The said land recorded in the name of petitioner’s grandfather,  late Rahim Mian.  To obtain compensation and a job against said land, Jumman Mian tricked the petitioner to sign an agreement, promising that he would secure compensation and a job from  CCL,  however,  the  said  Jumman  Mian,  using  his  name  and influence, obtained a fraudulent certificate from the local land office, submitted it to CCL and received the compensation and then, by making Nurullah, son of Subhani Mian, his son-in-law, secured a job for him. Jumman Mian took full advantage of the similarity  in names with  his father,  Rahim  Mian,  and after  getting Nurullah the job, he reneged on his promise to the petitioner.

It has been submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that Circle  Officer,  wrote  a  letter  dated  15.9.2014  to  the  Staff  Officer (Planning) Kujju area regarding enquiry of land appertaining to Mandu Thana no.114 and Khata no. 119. It is further stated that the land  as  shown  by  the  petitioner  is  a  true  one.  It  has further  been submitted that petitioner has also annexed family ancestral letter issued by Circle officer, Mandu dated 23.07.2015 showing that the petitioner is the real Bonafide beneficiary.

He had lastly submitted that General Manager, Kujju area wrote a letter to the petitioner on 27.3.15 regarding a detailed enquiry regarding  job  &  compensation,  however,  when  nothing  was  done by the respondents then petitioner gave representation dated 7.9.16 to the Managing Director C.C.L., Kujju  Area regarding the fact about job & compensation taken by one Jumman Mian on false documents. Finally, the petitioner has written letter to the C.M.D., CCL, on 23.1.19 regarding grant of job as well as compensation to the petitioner for the lands acquired by C.C.L. In view of the aforesaid  submission  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner  prayed  for taking action against the respondent no.6 and to pay compensation to the petitioner.

It  has  been  submitted  by  Ld.  Counsel  for  the respondent  no.6 that the alleged agreement dated 14.2.2006 annexed as Annexure-1 of the writ application is forged and fabricated and as a matter of fact, no such Agreement is executed between the petitioner and Jumman Mian. The alleged signature shown in the said agreement is not of Jumman Mian. He had further submitted that so far as the report sent to the Staff  officer Project and Planning, Kuju Area by the Circle Officer, Mandu, is concerned; it is based on the information from the Settlement Office, Hazaribag which cannot be assumed authentic, inasmuch as, from the letter dated 26.9.2017,  it  is  evident  that  no  genealogy  has  been  issued  of  any raiyat on the land in question from the Settlement Office, Hazaribag.  He had also submitted that the Circle  Officer,  Mandu has issued a genealogy certificate dated 14.05.2009 which disclosed that Jumman Mian is the son of Rahim Mian and the petitioner is the son-in-law of Jumman Mian being husband of his daughter Sufaida Khatoon. Further, the land verification certificate bearing letter no.1 dated 2.4.2009 has also been issued by the Circle Officer, Mandu which disclosed that the land is recorded in the name of Rahim Mian. He lastly submitted that land possession certificate has also been issued regarding physical possession of the land vide letter dated 20/22.4.2023 issued by the Welfare Officer,  Pundi  Project,  Kuju Area,  Ramgarh,  which  shows  against the Plot No.-2594 and 2612, employment has been given to Nurullah Ansari (Respondent No.-06 herein). In view of the aforesaid submission learned counsel submitted that no relief should be granted to the petitioner.

Learned  counsel  for  the  respondent  C.C.L. had submitted  that respondent no.6 has been granted employment as per the company rules  and  the  documents  submitted  by  him  has  been  authenticated by the competent authority of State Government. He had further submitted that pursuant to complaint, a departmental proceeding has been initiated after issuance of the charge-sheet and after concluding the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted a detailed report on 2.08.2025, holding the charge to be not proved. However, on perusal of supplementary counter affidavit filed by Respondent no.6  it  appears  that  final  order  dated  12.08.2025  has  already  been issued under the signature of Project Officer, Pundi Project, whereby after careful consideration of the enquiry report and finding contained therein along with other available records, disciplinary authority has found that the charges leveled against Sri Nurullah Ansari (respondent no.6 herein) are baseless and not proved and respondent no.6 has been exonerated from the charges leveled against him.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed with the respective affidavits, it transpires that that respondent no.6 has been given employment as per the company rules and the documents submitted by him has been authenticated by the competent authority of the State Government. The said fact is quite evident from the para-11 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of CCL dated 26.02.2020.

It further transpires that pursuant to complaint made by the petitioner  against  the  respondent  no.  6,  a  charge  sheet  was  issued on  6.1.2015  as  contained  at Annexure-A to  the  2nd supplementary counter  affidavit  dated  04.08.2025  and  on  the said  charge  sheet, a detailed inquiry was conducted by the CCL authorities and enquiry report signed on 02.08.2025 was submitted; whereby charges leveled against respondent no.6 was found not true. Thereafter, disciplinary authority after going through the said report and other records and after careful consideration, has exonerated the respondent  no.6  from  the  charges  leveled  against  him  vide  office order dated 12.08.2005 (Annexure-A to supplementary counter affidavit dated 04.09.2025 filed by respondent no.6).

It is also now well settled proposition of law that hotly contested disputed question of facts is to be proved by the party and Courts while exercising writ jurisdiction should refrain from adjudicating any such dispute. Reference in this regard is made to the case of Roshina T vs. Abdul Azeez K.T. and Ors. (2019) 2 SCC 329, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:-

“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 [Mohan Pandey v. Usha  Rani  Rajgaria,  (1992)  4  SCC 61] and Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal [Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal, (2003) 6 SCC 230].)”

In the instant case, even ignoring the result of disciplinary proceedings,  the  factual  aspect  indicates  that  it  is  purely  disputed question of fact; and the same cannot be decided under writ jurisdiction.

Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, no relief can be granted to the petitioner and as such the instant Writ application is hereby dismissed.