- (1.) 03/ 04.05.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State.
(2.) PETITIONERS, by way of the present writ application have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ / order / direction, commanding upon the respondent authorities not to oust the petitioners forcibly from their private agricultural lands on account of illegal construction of a school in Plot No. 11, 12 and 17 of Khata No.38, Village Berokala , P.S Barkatha, District Hazaribagh, measuring total area about 5.59 acres, by abusing the administrative machinery. The petitioners claiming to be the owners of the said lands, in question, have filed the writ application, stating that they are being forcibly removed from the possession of their agricultural land for construction of a school in connivance with the private respondent No.7, who is the local M.L.A. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in this connection, has submitted that the said lands of the petitioners are their agricultural lands and accordingly, the petitioners are being deprived of their livelihood by the illegal action of the State Government, tantamounting to deprivation of life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Madhu Kishwar and Others -Vs.-State of Bihar and Others, reported in 1996 (5) SCC 125, wherein, taking note of its earlier decision in Olga Tellis Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation, reported in 1985 (3) SCC 545, the Supreme Court has been held that right of livelihood includes right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Placing reliance on these decisions, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are being deprived of their very livelihood by illegally and forceably taking away the agricultural land of the petitioners and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent State in this case pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 19.12.2011. In the said counter affidavit, it has been stated that by a registered deed of gift No.1986 dated 15.1.1989, the predecessors-in-interest of these petitioners had made a deed of gift in favour of the State Government of 5.59 acres of aforesaid land for construction of the school. It is further stated in this counter affidavit that the said school was running on the land, in question, in a titled roof building since the year 1982 itself and after the deed of gift registered by the predecessors-in-interest of these petitioners, there is a full-fledged building of the school with hostel, playing ground, compound wall etc., and the said school is running since the year 1982 itself on the lands in question.
(3.) THIS fact has been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. As such, this is a disputed question of fact which cannot be looked into in the writ jurisdiction. In view of the disputed facts stated above, there is no merit in this writ application, which is, accordingly, dismissed.;