IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 583 of 2009
Asad Khan & anr. ...... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & others ...... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.PATEL
For the Petitioners: M/s Deepak Kumar, Manoj Kumar
For the Respts. : Mr. J.C. to S.C. L & C
———
02/ Dated: 20th of April, 2009
1. This writ petition has been preferred alleging that the
concerned respondent specially respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 are
constructing on a land bearing Khata No. 46/48, Plot No. 563
situated in village of Mouza- Nawada, Ward no. 13 (Koriyadih) and as
the land is owned by the present petitioners, the respondents cannot
construct a school upon the land of the petitioners without following
the procedure under the Land Acquisition Act or without purchasing
the said land.
2. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents, who has vehemently submitted that the petitioners are
not owner of the land. There is no document which connects the
present petitioners with the land in question. Not a single document
annexed with the present petition reveals the ownership of the present
petitioners with the aforesaid land.
3. In view of this fact and looking to the annexures annexed
with the memo of the petition, prima-facie, petitioners have not
established their ownerships upon the land in question. It appears
that a title suit ought to have been preferred by the petitioners so that
the evidence may be produced before the concerned respondents. The
petitioners are relying upon the photocopy of the documents which is
thirty years old. The petitioners are also claiming ownership through
his grandfather, through some settlement orders but no such order is
annexed and the rent receipts at Annexure-2, are not the proofs of the
ownership at all.
4. In these set of circumstances, I am not inclined to
exercise the extra-ordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It appears that disputed
question of title is involved in the present case which requires
evidence to be led before the concerned respondent authorities or
before the competent court. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
Vk (D.N. Patel, J)