SUNIL KUMAR RANA, SON OF SRI RAMESHWAR RANA vs RANCHI REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, RANCHI THROUGH ITS VICE CHAIRMAN, PRAGATI SADAN, KUTCHERY ROAD, POLICE STATION, KOTWALI, DIST. RANCHI

No one appears on behalf of the petitioners.Â

Heard Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned G.P. VI appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2.Â

No one appears on behalf of the private respondents and on behalf of the respondent-State.Â

This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-Â

For issuance of an appropriate direction to the respondent nos. 1 to 4 to show cause as to how and under what circumstances multi storied building

plan of the respondent no. 10 was sanctioned on the portion of R. S. Plot No. 1006 and 1007 measuring an area of 12 kathas 06 chhatak 16 square

feet appertaining to R.S. Khata No. 107 of village Hatma, Police Station Lalpur, District Ranchi when admittedly Title Suit No. 157/99 was pending

for the said plots before the competent Court of law and the same has now been decreed in favour of the petitioners by judgment and decree dated

07.09.2009 and further prayer has been made for issuance of a direction to the respondent nos. 1 to 6 to show cause as to why they are not taking any

action against the respondent no. 10 in pursuance to the representations filed by the petitioners.Â

Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 submits that as on date, the matter regarding sanction or cancellation etc. vests with

Ranchi Municipal Corporation for this particular area i.e Lalpur, Ranchi which is the subject matter of this writ petition. He submits that if the

petitioners have any grievance, they have to move before the Authority of Ranchi Municipal Corporation. He further submits that respondent nos. 1

and 2 has taken specific stand at paragraph no. 11 of the counter-affidavit filed by them that the objection raised on behalf of the petitioners relate to

title or ownership of the land in question, which can be decided only by a competent court of civil jurisdiction and no finding can be recorded in

exercise of power under Section 226 of the Constitution of India on the point of title. There are serious disputes regarding the title, therefore, the same

cannot be adjudicated in the writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, he submits that this writ petition is not maintainable.Â

Considering the prayer made by the counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the writ

petitioners on account of disputed question of facts involved in this writ petition. Moreover, considering the prayer made by the writ petitioners and

considering the submission made by the counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2, it appears that the matter regarding sanction/cancellation of building

plan is within the domain of Ranchi Municipal Corporation.Â

In the facts and circumstances of this case, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to take steps for redressal of their

grievances in accordance with law.  Â