RANCHI, India, Aug. 5 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on July 4:

1. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

1. The instant Writ Petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 09.01.2002 passed by the Respondent No.2 in Rev. Misc. Appeal No.58 of 1989-90 whereby and whereunder said appeal has been dismissed affirming the order of eviction passed in E.E. Case No.44 of 1984-85.

2. As per the case of the petitioner, he purchased 2 Katha 13.5 dhurs of land within Mouza- Naya Dumka No.7 of Thana No.7 by registered sale-deed in the year 1984 and after the said purchase, he is in settled possession over the same without any interference from any quarter.

3. The dispute is regarding the boundary-wall to which the petitioner claims that as per the map enclosed with the sale-deed, the said boundary wall had been shown as part and parcel of the land by which it was sold. By the impugned order the boundary wall has been directed to be removed.

4. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State and the definite stand is that the writ petitioner had encroached over 1 Katha 8.5 dhurs of land situated on eastern side of building of one Prabhu Hajam constructed on his acquired land.

5. The definite stand of the State as taken in Para-9 of the counteraffidavit is that the matter involves encroachment over the public land for which Encroachment Eviction being E.E. Case No.44 of 1984-85 was lodged. The nature of the land is Khas land and not Basouri (residential land).

6. Merely because the boundary wall was shown in the map enclosed with the sale deed, will not transfer title over it, unless the vendor had right and title over the said boundary wall to transfer it.

7. Law is settled that the Writ Court does not sit in appeal over the findings of fact recorded by the Court having competent jurisdiction. The scope of interference is limited to jurisdictional error and is to be exercised on equitable principle.

8. From the pleadings of the parties and the materials on record, it is evident that there is concurrent finding of fact regarding encroachment over the public land.

9. Under the circumstances, this is not a fit case for interference by this Court.

Writ Petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

10. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to assert his right, title and possession over the land, in question, before the Court of competent jurisdiction.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.