- (1.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner initially, submitted that predecessor-in-title of the present petitioner was given the property, in question, on lease, in the Year, 1939 for 30 years. After the lease period was over for no reason, whatsoever, initially, it was not extended, but, subsequently, it was extended up to the Year, 1999. Again thereafter, it was not extended and, therefore, writ petition was preferred in the Year, 2006, and thereafter, despite several objections, the lease-period was extended by two separate lease documents, dated 18th December, 2007, as well as 2nd January, 2008 for further period of 30 years. The contention of the petitioner is that respondent No. 6 is encroaching upon the small part of the said land and, therefore, the petitioner approached the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, Daltonganj, who has executed a lease-deed and representation has also been preferred before the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, Daltonganj and it is prayed that the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, Daltongaj must dispose of the said representation.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that once the lease-deed is executed and if there is any encroachment or if the rights of the petitioner are interfered with by some private parties, the petitioner ought to have approached the concerned civil court, as per Section-15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, Daltonganj cannot decide the dispute between the parties. All that depends upon the facts of each and every case. How much land was given in the Year, 1939, on lease. Thereafter, for what area the lease was extended and actually where the respondent No. 6 is residing. All these questions involve a detail factual aspect to be established by the petitioner by cogent and convincing evidences before the civil Court and thereafter, only the rights of the parties can be decided and, therefore, petition may not be entertained by this Court.
(3.) Having heard learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) It is claimed by the petitioner that his fore father was given lease for 30 years in the Year, 1939, thereafter the lease was extended up to the Year, 1999, and thereafter writ petition was preferred in the Year, 2006 and further lease period was extended by two separate lease documents dated 18th December, 2007 and 2nd January, 2008 for further period of 30 years. (ii) it appears that as per the claim of the petitioner respondent No. 6 is occupying the land, which has been given, on lease to the present petitioner and, therefore, respondent No. 6 must go out of the said property and this must be decided by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, Daltonganj. This is not permissible in the eye of law because it requires factual aspect to be established by cogent and convincing evidences especially, about what is the original area of law which was given in the Year, 1939. Secondly, how much area was further given on lease up to the Year, 1999. Thirdly, there is still further extension of the lease for 80 years by two separate lease-deeds. All these areas aft to be matched meticulously. Firstly of the year, 1939, secondly of the year, 1999 and thirdly when last lease-deeds were executed in 2007 & 2008. It also requires factual respect supplied by evidence that how the respondent No. 6 is residig on the land and that too, in which portion. If respondent No. 6 is revealed as an encroacher, the encroachment can be decided only by taking evidence, and, therefore, I am not inclined to give any direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Panau, Daltonganj to decide representation. On the contrary, the petitioner ought to have preferred a suit against the alleged encroacher.;