The court cannot adjudicate private property disputes in writ jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. – Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Apurv Singh, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1.

3. Heard Mr. Ravi Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5.

4. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

i. "For quashing the ''No Objection Certificate'' installation of Petrol Pump to the company and others vide his Office Memo no. 478 dt. 3.12.2001 which resulted in the appointment of Sanjay Kumar as their retail dealer in High Speed Diesel Oil/Petrol and lubricants for Bermo Area, District- Bokaro having Customer no. 423391. And a letter vide Ref. PPG/RET dt. 7.1.2002 to Sanjay Kumar issued by the Regional Manager and duly constituted Attorney Sri P.P. Ganguly of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Tata Nagar Regional Office, Jamshedpur. So far it relates to forcibly occupation of land of petitioner and certificate issued in forged paper.

ii. For a direction upon the respondent no. 3 Sanjay Kumar restraining him to sale High Speed Diesel oil/Petrol & lubricant of the company as the said business is started on the land under Khata no. 237 Plot no. 1523 village- Piohri P.s. Peterbar, Dist. Bokaro forcibly occupied by him.

iii. During the pendency of this application the operation of the aforesaid order be stayed.

iv. After quashing the said N.O.C. the land of petitioner be vacated and restore the land to the petitioner."

5. Counsel for the respondents submits that there appears to be some property dispute between the petitioner and the private respondent no. 6 in connection with the property involved in this case.

6. Counsel for the respondent-State by referring to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 submits that the "no objection" involved in this case was granted in favour of respondent no. 6 for installation of petrol pump as contained in memo no. 478 dated 03.12.2001 after due enquiry and he submits that there has been a dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no. 6 and the petitioner had instituted a Miscellaneous Case No. 25 of 2004-05 before the learned Deputy Collector, Land Reforms (D.C.L.R.), Bermo at Tenughat against respondent no. 6 which was ultimately decided in favour of respondent no. 6 against which, an appeal preferred by the petitioner which was dismissed.

7. The counsel for the respondents submits that on account of private dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no. 6 and on account of the fact that the "no objection" was granted after due enquiry, no relief can be granted to the writ petitioner in the instant case.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that there appears to be a dispute between the petitioner and the private respondent no. 6 in connection with the property involved in this case and further "no objection" certificate was granted to the respondent no. 6 after due enquiry, this Court is of the considered view that the private dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no. 6 cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.

9. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.

10. However, this order will not be an impediment in the way of the petitioner to get his right, title and interest declared through a competent court of civil jurisdiction.