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

In the instant petition, petitioners have prayed for the following relief:-

(a)To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or writs, direction directions authority for removal of unauthorized construction made on petitioners Plot No. 859 and 860 area 2 dec. pertaining to Khata No. 24 situated at Village- Khajuri, Police Station Naubatpur, District Patna by private respondent no. 7 on the instruction of respondent authority no. 5 C.O. Naubatpur, Patna ignoring the orders passed by the respondent no. 4, D.C.L.R., Danapur in Land Disputes Case No. 34 of 2013-14 and 40 of 2015-16. The said unauthorized construction has been made after breaking the wall of petitioner in his absence.

(b)To pass the suitable compensation at the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two Lacs) which has been lost by the petitioner due to breakage of his legal construction on his own land.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that original petitioner-Deo Pujan Singh had purchased 2 decimals of land appertaining to Khata no. 24, Plot No. 859 and 860, situated at village-Khajuri, Police Station-Naubatpur,District-Patna, from Narayan Sao by virtue of sale deed no. 8563 dated 19.08.2003, and was in peaceful possession thereof. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner died, and his legal heirs-petitioners stepped into shoes of the original petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that respondent no.7 approached D.C.L.R, Danapur on two occasions and on both the occasions D.C.L.R, Danapur passed the order of measurement however, after the measurement, the said measurement has not been accepted by respondent no. 7 and he has encroached the land of the petitioner. He further submits that while deciding land dispute case no. 34 of 2013-14 the D.C.L.R, Danapur directed the C.O, Naubatpur for doing the needful but the C.O, Naubatpur did not do anything and asked the parties for approaching the Civil Court, as stated in para 8 and 9 of the writ petition. Petitioners aggrieved by the action of the respondent no.7 has approached this Court.

3. Learned counsel on behalf of the State has filed counter affidavit and in para 11 of counter affidavit, it is stated that there is complex question of right and title involved between the concerned parties, which may be resolved by the competent Civil Court.

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

5. 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.

6. 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/MTUjMTEzODAjMjAyMSMxI04=-qxFnel6Ddvo=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.