KAMESHWAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against an order, passed by the learned Single Judge dated 24th March, 2011 in W.P. (C) No. 1380 of 2011 whereby, the petition, preferred by the appellant has been dismissed and the order, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi dated 20th January, 2011 in Encroachment Appeal No. 28R15 of 20102011 has been upheld. By this Appeal, the order, passed by the Circle Officer, Kanke, Ranchi dated 11th August, 2010 in Encroachment Case No. 1 of 20092010 has been confirmed. Thus, by dismissal of the writ petition, both the orders, passed in Encroachment Case No. 1 of 20092010 dated 11th August, 2010 as well as the order, passed in Encroachment Appeal No. 28R15 of 20102011 dated 20th January, 2011 have been upheld. Against this order, this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that the petitioner has purchased the property bearing plot no. 692 and there is an adverse possession upon the road since long and therefore, till the suit of the present appellant bearing Title Suit No. 203 of 2009 is decided by the Civil Court, both Circle Officer as well as the Deputy Commissioner could not have decided the encroachment matter against the present appellant. This aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition vide order dated 24th March, 2011 and hence, the said order, deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(2.) COUNSEL for the respondent State submitted that there is no error committed by the learned Singe Judge in dismissing the writ petition, preferred by the present appellant because the orders, passed by the Circle Officer, Kanke as well as by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, which are at Annexure7 and 8 to the memo of this appeal, are apparently in consonance with the facts and law. The land, in question, upon which there is an encroachment by the present appellant is a road even as per the Regional Survey Khatian and there is construction on road and therefore, the orders, passed by the Circle Officer as well as by the Deputy commissioner, Ranchi are factually correct and there is no law in favour of the present appellant. Moreover, looking to the map of the nearby few plots i.e. plot nos. 691, 692 and 694, which is at page no. 29 to the memo of the Letters Patent Appeal, even as per this map, there is a road between plot no. 694 and 691. The same road is extended up to the land between plot no. 694 and 692. This is, prima facie, even from a map, which is annexed to the memo of the Letters Patent Appeal as Annexure1, there is a road between plot no. 694 and 691 and also between plot no. 694 and 692 and therefore, the owner of plot no. 694 can also use the land, in question, as a road. This aspect of the matter has also been appreciated by both the authorities below, namely the Circle Officer as well as the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi while passing the orders, under Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 and therefore, rightly the writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge and therefore, the Letters Patent Appeal deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) AS a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and hence, the same is hereby, dismissed.