Back
2021 Supreme(Pat) 823
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Vikash Jain, Anjani Kumar Sharan, JJ.
Inderjit Prasad Roy, Son of Late Ramnihora Roy - Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar and ors. – Respondents
Letters Patent Appeal No.312 of 2021 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9300 of 2020
Decided On : 21-08-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Upendra Kumar Singh, Advocate, Mr. Arvind Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam, AAG-12, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Advocate.
Proceedings under Article 226 are not appropriate for adjudicating complex disputes relating to title or ownership.
Headnote:
Land Dispute - Title Suit - 11 decimals of land - Title Suit No.1540 of 2006 - AIR 1961 SC 1526, AIR 1976 SC 386, 1993 suppl (1) SCC 306
Fact of the Case:
The appellant claimed ownership of 11 decimals of land, part of which was allegedly encroached by the authorities for constructing a Panchayat Bhawan. The appellant sought demarcation of his land based on a judgment in his favor in Title Suit No.1540 of 2006.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dispute involved contested facts and complex issues of title, which were not suitable for summary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court dismissed the appeal, stating that the matter should be resolved through a fresh Title Suit or in the appeal filed by the State.
Issues: Disputed ownership of land, alleged encroachment, appropriateness of seeking relief under Article 226 for complex factual disputes.
Ratio Decidendi: A proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not suitable for adjudicating complex disputes relating to title or ownership, especially when they involve contested facts and may require oral evidence.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as it merited no consideration in the summary proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
JUDGMENT :
Anjani Kumar Sharan, J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AAG-12 for the State and learned counsel for the respondent no.6 through video conference.
2. The present Intra-Court appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 25.03.2021 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.9300 of 2020.
3. The appellant herein is the unsuccessful writ petitioner. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in a narrow compass, are that vide judgment of the learned Court below in Title Suit No.1540 of 2006, 11 decimals of land in question was recorded as “Anabad Bihar Sarkar” has been held to belong to the appellant and, accordingly, his name was entered in the khatiyan in place of “Anabad Bihar Sarkar” on 13.07.2013 but the appellant is not in possession of the entire 11 decimals of land. According to the appellant, some part of his land has been encroached by the authorities who are constructing Panchayat Bhawan at instance of the local Mukhiya, who is respondent no.6 herein. It is further case of the appellant that his land has been measured thrice with the intention to defeat his genuine claim. There is a road adjacent to the plot/land in question which has been assumed by the authorities to be part of 11 decimals of the land, which the petitioner has bought and petitioner has nothing to do with the road and his 11 decimals was not forming part of the road, as the road has a separate Plot Number, bearing Plot No.3614, whereas the plot claimed by the appellant is Plot No.3621.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that vide judgment dated 30.12.2010 passed in Title Suit No.1540 of 2006 by the learned Court below, 11 decimals of land in question was recorded as “Anabad Bihar Sarkar” and, accordingly, the name of the appellant was entered in the khatiyan in place of “Anabad Bihar Sarkar” on 13.07.2013. The appellant is in possession of the entire 11 decimals as part of his land, which has been encroached by the respondent authorities, who are constructing Panchayat Bhawan at the instance of local Mukhiya. He further submits that the respondent authorities may be directed to demarcate his entire 11 decimals of land which is also in terms of the judgment in his favour in the Title Suit.
5. On the other hand, learned AAG-12 appearing on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 5 submits that first of all the judgment of the learned Court below is ex parte as it was uncontested. He further submits that the road which is existing for the last 80-85 years was repaired in the year 2002-03 and at that time there was no objection from any party much less the appellant. The appellant was not in possession of 11 decimals of land, in fact, he was occupying only 8.75 decimals, whereas 2.25 decimals of land claimed by the appellant was part of the road just adjacent to the plot. Thus, he submits that even if it is assumed that the ownership of the land is with the appellant, but once a road which is a public utility is in place for the last 80-85 years, it cannot be said that the State authorities have encroached upon the land of the appellant. He has also informed that an appeal has been preferred against the ex parte judgment passed in favour of the appellant.
6. In the writ proceedings before this Court, both the parties have filed their respective counter affidavit, supplementary counter affidavit and rejoinder, which all are on record and I have perused the same. The Circle Officer, Patori, Samastipur in paragraph-13 of his counter affidavit has stated that the name of the appellant has been entered in record of right with respect to only 11 decimal of land, bearing Khata No.2643, Plot No.3621 and the rest land of the same plot remains public land (Gair Mazarua) vested in State Government. Further in paragraph-14, he has stated that the Panchayat Bhawan is being constructed on public land and no part of petitioner’s land is disturbed. In spite of the fact that the land has been measured thrice, the petitioner is not
