PATNA, India, Sept. 1 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Aug. 1:

Heard the parties.

2. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-

For issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the Respondents authority i.e. Respondent No. 3 to construct the P.C.C Road which is constructed by M.L.C fund, removed by Circle Officer, Nawanagar with collusion of Respondent No. 6 as being his raiyati land, which is wrong, that road is not, in raiyati land of Respondent No. 6, Respondent No. 6 wanted to take compensation under Land Acquisition Act, treating it as raiyati land and when compensation was not paid, then removed the P.C.C Road, which is Rasta of Public bearing Area 4 feet wide into 20 feet length in this regard, representation filed before District Magistrate, Buxar Vide Annexure 5, but no heed was paid by Respondent No. 3 and take action against Respondent No. 5 and 6 who play fraud before Hon'ble High Court and not came with clean hand in C.W.J.C No. 1094 of 2015 which is disposed of Vide order dated 10/4/2015.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land situated in Mauza - Bhelwariya, Block Nawanagar, District Buxar bearing khata no. 41, plot no. 429 on which the alleged PCC road, which is 4 feet wide and 20 feet in length, was constructed is not the land of the respondent no. 6. He further submits that respondent no. 6 has approached the Hon'ble High Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 1094 of 2015 stating therein that public road has been constructed over his raiyat land situated in Mauza - Bhelwariya, Block Nawanagar District - Buxar bearing Khata No. 49, C.S. Plot No. 428, 429. It was stated in construction of the said road neither consent was taken nor compensation was paid under the Land Acquisition Act. Learned counsel submits that the said C.W.J.C. No. 1094 of 2015 has been disposed of with direction to the District Magistrate, Buxar, after getting an enquiry, either to arrive at a settlement with the petitioner or to take recourse to the provision of Land Acquisition Act or to restore the land to its original position.

4. Learned counsel for the State submits through paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit that Anchal Amin submitted a report that said road has been constructed on 33'X2.6' (82.5 Square Feet) of the Plot No. 429 which is the raiyati land of the respondent-Sunil Kumar Mishra, as contained in Annexure C of the counter affidavit. He further submits that the land in question is a public path. He further submits that counter affidavit clearly denotes that there is dispute of right and title over the land in question. Hence, the present writ is not maintainable.

5. In the light of submission made on behalf of both parties, it is clear that there is dispute between the parties over the land in question.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments has held that regular suit is appropriate remedy for settlement of dispute relating to property rights between private persons. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where there is violation of some statutory duty on the part of statutory authority is alleged. It is held that the High Court cannot allow its constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies under the general law, civil or criminal are available. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution being special and extra-ordinary should not be exercised casually or lightly on mere asking by the litigant. In this context, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sohan Lal Vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in AIR 1957 SC 529 and in the case of Radhey Shyam & Anr. Vs. Chhabi Nath and Ors, reported in (2015) SCC 423 are quite relevant.

7. In the case of Sohan Lal (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under :

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTYwNzAjMjAyMSMxI04=-nCyEOaJMOvs=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.