The court upheld the learned Single Judge's decision not to interfere with ongoing proceedings regarding land acquisition, emphasizing the need for a civil suit to resolve ownership disputes.

JUDGMENT :

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.)

Prayer:

1. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the letters patent is directed against the order dated 31.08.2023 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 761 of 2023, whereby and whereunder, the learned writ court has dismissed the writ petition by refusing to interfere with the proceeding which has been initiated under Misc. Case No.05 of 2022-23 related to cancellation of jamabandi.

Facts:

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings in the writ petition which requires to be enumerated herein, read as under:

It is the case of the writ petitioner that the lands being Khata No.86, plot no.907 of mouja Kudra, Area 0.73 acres is a khatiyani raiyati land and the name of the grandfather of the writ petitioner, namely, Sukhan Lohar is recorded in the khatiyan as also the jamabandi of lands in question has been created and recorded as Raiyat in the name of grandfather of the appellant in Register-II.

It is the case of the writ petitioner that the Circle Officer, Sisai alongwith other officials started creating hindrance over the possession of the writ petitioner in collusion with other land mafias to which the writ petitioner made a complaint before the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi on 30.05.2022.

The writ petitioner has also sought for information regarding the acquisition of land in question from the office of DCLR, Gumla through RTI, which has been replied that the land in question has never been acquired for any purpose.

It is the case of the writ petitioner that all of a sudden, a notice dated 18.07.2022 was received from the office of Circle Officer, Sisai in a Misc. Case No. 05/2022-23 asking the writ petitioner to appear before the said office along with all documents with respect to the land in question as it was stated that the lands are acquired land to which the writ petitioner appeared and filed his reply annexing the relevant documents but thereafter the writ petitioner got no response.

Thereafter, the writ petitioner received another notice 07.09.2022 from the office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Gumla asking the writ petitioner to appear before the concerned authority for hearing of the aforesaid misc. case. but without hearing the notice as contained in Memo No. 131(ii) dated 04.02.2023 issued by the Circle Officer, Sisai which was issued to the writ petitioner, directing to remove the encirclement from the land in question.

The writ petitioner, thereafter, made an application before the Circle Officer, Sisai requesting to provide the letter no.105(ii)dated 28.01.2023 which was provided by the Circle Officer, Sisai wherein direction was given to the Circle Officer, Sisai to create new jamaandi in the name of the Government that too without acquisition of the same.

Being aggrieved thereof, the writ petitioner approached to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 761 of 2023, whereby and whereunder, the learned writ court has dismissed the writ petition by refusing to interfere with the proceeding which has been initiated under Misc. Case No.05 of 2022-23 related to initiation of proceeding of cancellation of jamabandi against which the appeal is preferred.

3. It is evident from the facts as referred hereinabove that writ petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging the very initiation of the proceeding initiated under Misc. Case No.05 of 2022-23 for cancellation of jamabandi which is running in the name of the predecessor in interest of the writ petitioner, namely, Late Sukhan Lohar son of Late Ghuran Lohar.

4. The background of initiation of the said proceeding as per the decision taken by the State as has been reflected in the counter affidavit is that the land in question has been acquired by the State when the land was under the exclusive title of late predecessor in interest of the writ petitioner, namely, Sukhan Lohar.

The contention of the State is that the land was acquired by initiating a regular proceeding under the