IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT R A N C H I
----
W.P.(PIL) NO. 4520 of 2009
----
Mahesh Singh @ Maheshwar Singh . ...... Petitione.
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand.
2. The Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land
Reforms, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment,
Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharsawan.
5. The Divisional Forest Officer, Seraikella-Kharsawan.
6. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Seraikella-Kharsawan.
7. The Circle Officer, Gamaharia, Seraikella-Kharsawan.
8. Sunil Bakhla, P.O.P.S. Gamaharia, Seraikella-Kharsawan.
....... Respondents.
----
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD
---
For the Petitioner: Mr. S.K.Sinha.
For the respondent no.8: Mr. Ananda Sen.
For the State : Mr.Manish Mishra, J.C. to A.G.
-----
04/14.01.2010
This writ petition has been filed ostensibly in public interest by
the petitioner on the plea that a piece of land bearing Plot no.341,
Khata no.748, Thana no.66 situated in Mohalla Motinagar, Gamaharia
in the district of Seraikella has been illegally settled by the
respondent-State in favour of the father of respondent no.8, Sunil
Bakhla and it has been assailed on the ground that the land in
question is a forest land which should not have been settled by the
respondent-State in favour of the father of respondent no.8.
In response to a show cause notice issued to the respondents
including respondent no.8, it was explained that the land in question
was settled in favour of the father of respondent no.8 by the
respondent-State way back in the year 1976 as a compensation for
the land which was owned and possessed by the father of
respondent no.8 but was acquired by the respondent-State and by
way of compensation the disputed land was settled in favour of the
father of the respondent no.8. Thereafter, the father of the
respondent no.8 constructed his residential house over the land in
question and after more than 33 years, respondent no.8, Sunil
Bakhla has filed this petition by way of a Public Interest Litigation
2.
alleging that the land in question is a forest
land. Besides this, he has filed several petitions before the authorities
of the Revenue Court alleging that the land in question is a forest
land for which a proceeding under Section 133 Cr.P.C. is pending
before the Revenue Court.
However, counsel for the petitioner asserted that the land
in question in fact is a forest land.
Having heard the counsel for the parties and on an
analysis of the fact which has been referred to hereinbefore, it is
clear that the petitioner although has filed this petition as a Public
Interest Litigation, it is clearly a personal interest litigation in order to
raise a land dispute on the plea that the land in question is a forest
land. Even assuming that the averment of the petitioner is correct
that the land in question is a forest land, obviously his remedy lies
before the State authorities and if the respondent-State has
compensated the respondent no.8 by allotting him a piece of another
land, recovery of the same, if at all it is sustainable, has to be done
by a court of competent jurisdiction and the same cannot be allowed
without due process of law specially after 33 years of its settlement
in favour of the father of respondent no.8 by way of compensation
for the land which was possessed by the father of respondent no.8
and had been acquired.
This petition, thus, cannot be entertained by way of a
Public Interest Litigation and consequently, the same is dismissed.
(Gyan Sudha Misra,C.J.)
( R.R.Prasad, J )
Biswas