- (1.) BY the Court. -Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner had come before this Court for commanding the respondents not to interfere with peaceful possession of the petitioner over piece of land belonging to the petitioner over Plot Nos. 380, 381, 384, 385 of khata Nos. 9 and 10 measuring an area of 29 decimals of village Chiraundi, Thana No. 186, District -Ranchi from making any kind of construction of road or lane over the land of the -petitioner. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid land in Plot Nos. 380, 381, 384 and 385 of khata Nos. 10 and 9 are recorded in the Revisional Survey Record of right in the name of Chaita Munda Son of Chamra Munda as "Kaymi". The petitioner has purchased 14 and 1/2 decimal of land of the said plots from Madho Munda and other who are the legal heirs of khatiyani raiyat from. Chaita Munda after taking permission of transfer of land under Section 46 of the C.N.T. Act, 1908 in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 27.10.1993. The sale -deed was also executed on 12.08.1994 by the legal heirs of the khatiyani raiyat in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner got the land mutated in the office of Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Ranchi and correction slip was issued on 16.10.1995 on which rent has been paid by the petitioner. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that he also purchased 14 and 1/2 MI decimals of the remaining portion of the land after taking permission vide order dated 07.05.2004 from the rent suit Deputy Collector, Ranchi and a sale was also executed on 09.09.2005 by the legal heirs of the khatiyani raiyat. However, the petitioner has been rudely taken aback by the acts of the respondents by which the road' or lane is being sought to be constructed over the land of the petitioner.
(3.) EARLIER , this Court had observed that if, the respondents - State want to construct road or land over the land of the petitioner. it cannot be done without acquiring the land and the construction of the road was stayed till further orders. Subsequently, again the respondents were asked to clearly state that whether the road is required in public interest or not and whether they can construct the road without actually using the petitioner's land in question. The respondent -state had earlier filed affidavits and after the order dated 04.07.2012, had again filed an affidavit on 08.10.2012.;