ORDER
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.
1. In both the writ petitions, as almost similar orders are under challenge, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Petitioner Deo Prasad Chakraborty [W.P. (C) No. 5244 of 2005] has challenged letter No. 839 dated 31st August, 2005, issued by the Deputy Development Com-missioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, District Board, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder, he has intimated the petitioner that the land, just below the over- bridge, Purana Bazar, Dhanbad, has been encroached by him and thereby, asked him to remove the encroachment or otherwise the District Board will have to remove the same. Further prayer has been made to set aside the order dated 10th August, 2005, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder. petitioners of both the writ petitions and some others have been shown encroachers over the land, in question.
3. Petitioners Srimati Bimla Devi and eight others have also challenged the said letter No. 839 dated 31st August, 2005, which was issued in the name of other petitioner Deo Prasad Chakraborty.
4. Petitioners in both the writ petitions have further challenged the order dated 30th August, 2005, passed by the Executive Engineer, Town Planning Division, Mineral Area Development Authority, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder, they have been prohibited from making further construction over the land, in question.
5. In these writ petitions, the dispute relates to part of land appertaining to Khata No. 165, Plot No. 266, Mauza No. 51, P.S. & District-Dhanbad, having an area of 4 Bigha, 27 Kattha and 27 Sq. ft. According to the petitioners, one Prabhulal Pranjiwan Pathak, who was the joint Benamidar of Kripa Shankar Worah and Sri Narveram G. Chanchani, took settlement of the land, in question, in the name of Prabhulal Pranjiwari Pathak by a registered deed of permanent settlement bearing Patta No. 1755 dated 16th April, 1934, executed by the then Chairman of the District Board, Manbhum. The petitioners claimed to have purchased their respective pieces of land out of the land, in question, from H.W. Builders Ltd. According to them, Hari Shankar Worah formed a trust, which transferred the land, in question, in favour of Hari Shankar Worah (Properties) Pvt. Ltd., having obtained a fresh certificate of incorporation, consequent to change of name, petitioner Deo Prasad Chakraborty claimed to have purchased 93 decimals of land out of the land, in question, along with six others’ in pursuance of a registered sale deed dated 21st April, 1998 from H.W. Builders Ltd. According to the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 5918 of 2005, they also purchased their respective pieces of land out of the land, in question, from H.W. Builders Ltd. by registered sale deeds. By way of example two sale deeds, executed in favour of Mukti Pada Dutta (petitioner No. 6) and Birju Saw @ Birju Prasad Saw (petitioner No. 9) on 12th July, 1998 and 24th April, 1998 respectively, have been annexed as Annexure 3 series to the writ petition, W.P. (C) No. 5918 of 2005.
6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the petitioners, being the rightful owners of the land, can not be evicted on the basis of the impugned orders and letters, in question, that too without initiating any kind of proceeding. Reliance was placed on receipts, showing payment of rent, the land having been mutated with the Public Works Department.
7. According to the counsel for the District Board, Dhanbad, there is nothing on the record to suggest that the land was settled in favour of H.W. Builders, who is the Benamidar of Prabhulal Pranjiwan Pathak. There is also nothing on the record to suggest that the widow of Prabhulal Pranjiwan Pathak, namely, Smt. Hari Kunwar Prabhulal Pathak and his three sons, namely, Prabhulal Pranjiwan Pathak, Mani Shankar Prabhulal Pathak and Mukund Lal Prabhulal Pathak, executed any deed of disclaim in favour of any one or other. In fact, according to the District Board, Dhanbad, the so called deed of settlement, stand to have been vide No. 1755 dated 16th April, 1934 in favour of Prabhulal Pranjiwan pathak is void since as per the guidelines, no prior approval of the State Government was taken before executing such deed of Patta.
8. From the citations of deed of sale dated 21st April, 1998 [Annexure 8 to W.P. (C) No. 5244 of 2005] it appears that the claim was made that Prabhulal Pranjiwan Pathak was a joint Benamidar of Kripa Shankar Worah, Hari Shankar Worah and Narveram G. Chanchani whereas two citations, made in the deed of absolute sale dated 24th April, 1998, enclosed at page 44 and onwards of W.P. (C) No. 5918 of 2005, it appears that the executants claimed that Prabhulal Pranjiwan Pathak was the joint Benamidar of Kripa Shankar Worah and Narveram G. Chanchani only. These sale deeds do not disclose that Prabhulal Pranjiwan Pathak was the joint Benamidar of Hari Shankar Worah also.
9. In these two writ petitions, there is nothing on the record to suggest that Prabhulal Pranjiwan Pathak was the joint Benamidar of Kripa Shankar Worah, Hari Shankar Worah and Naiveram G. Chanchani. Such finding also can not be given by this Court in an application, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it is not even prima facie clear as to whether the petitioners have right and title over the land, in question. This apart, specific plea has been taken by he respondent District Board, Dhanbad, that the land, in question, belongs to the District Board, as recorded in the records of right.
10. The Mineral Area Development Authority, Dhanbad, which is the competent authority to sanction map for construction of a building, has taken plea that the petitioners were constructing buildings, deviating from the sanctioned map and the petitioners having encroached over the land, they were asked to stop the construction work.
11. In the facts and circumstances, as this Court can not determine the question of right and title, as claimed by the petitioners, is not inclined to give any finding in one or other way. Aggrieved party may move before a competent authority or civil Court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate relief. It will also be open to the competent authority to act in accordance with law.
12. both the writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
13. Interim orders dated 16th September, 2005 and 7th October, 2005, passed in W.P. (C) No. 5244 of 2005 and W.P. (C) No. 5918 of 2005 respectively, stand vacated.