Jharkhand High Court
Kajal Mahto vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited on 21 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 7524 of 2013
Kajal Mahto ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, a Government Company,
having its Head Office at Koyala Bhawan, Koyala Nagar,
Dhanbad, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.
2. The Director (Personnel), Bharat Coking Coal Limited,
Koyala Bhawan, Koyala Nagar, Dhanbad.
3. The Chief General Manager, Western Jharia Area,
Moonidih, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad.
4. The General Manager, Western Jharia Area, Moonidih,
Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad.
5. Additional General Manager, Western Jharia Area,
Moonidih, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad.
6. Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, West Jharia Area,
Moonidih, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad.
7. Estate Officer, Mahuda Area, Bharat Coking Coal Limited,
Mahuda, Dhanbad.
8. The Project Officer, Murlidih Colliery,
Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad. ..... ... Respondents.
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Akash Deep, Advocate.
For the BCCL : Mr. A.K. Mehta, Advocate.
------
10/ 21.10.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated
10.08.2012, passed by the General Manager, Western Jharia Area, Munidih,
Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad, whereby the representation filed by
the petitioner has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner belongs to a very low income group and the petitioner used to
earn his livelihood by cultivating the lands, which has been damaged by the
BCCL. He submits that the Project Officer, BCCL after examining the
factual position of the lands, on which, the petitioner has made his claim,
has submitted a report in the year 2006 stating that due to mining
operation, the petitioner's land was damaged. He further submits that
earlier the petitioner has also moved before this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(C)
No. 3013 of 2011, which was disposed of by order dated 25.06.2012, by
directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation and BCCL was also
directed to pass a fresh order. He further submits that the petitioner has
already filed the documents with regard to his property, but the BCCL by
the aforesaid impugned order has rejected the claim on flimsy ground. On
these grounds, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this
petition may kindly be allowed.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the BCCL by
way of drawing the attention of the court towards Annexure-7 of the
petition submits that the petitioner is not the sole raiyat of the lands,
measuring 3.96 acres in different plots, appertaining to khata Nos. 24, 25,
34 and 45 of Mouza Murlidhar, Mouza 343 within the district of Dhanbad.
5. Looking into the said order, it transpires that the name of so
many persons are disclosed as raiyats of that plots. Thus, disputed
questions of fact are arising in the matter.
6. Reference may be made to the case of Radhey Shayam &
Anr. Versus Chhabi Nath & Ors., reported in (2009) 5 SCC 616, wherein
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in pars 18 to 21 held as follows:-
"18. Similarly, in State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani
Singh [1993 Supp (1) SCC 306 : AIR 1992 SC 1018] this
Court held that the writ petition is not the appropriate
remedy in order to give a declaration of a person's title
to property, the Court made it very clear that disputed
questions of title cannot be satisfactorily adjudicated in a
writ petition (SCC p. 309, para 7: AIR p. 1020, para 7).
19. Same caution was sounded in a subsequent decision
of Mohan Pandey v. Usha Rani Rajgaria [(1992) 4 SCC
61 : AIR 1993 SC 1225] wherein the learned Judges held
that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for
settlement of disputes relating to property rights between
private persons. Remedy under Article 226 of the
Constitution is not available except where violation of
some statutory duty on the part of a statutory authority is
complained of. The Court made it very clear by making
the following observations: (SCC p. 63, para 6)
"6. ... The High Court cannot allow the constitutional
jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for
which remedies, under the general law, civil or
criminal, are available. It is not intended to replace
the ordinary remedies by way of a suit or application
available to a litigant. The jurisdiction is special and
extraordinary and should not be exercised casually or
lightly."
20. Relying on the ratio in Mohan Pandey [(1992) 4 SCC
61 : AIR 1993 SC 1225] this Court again in Prasanna
Kumar Roy Karmakar v. State of W.B. [(1996) 3 SCC
403] held that in a dispute between the landlord and
tenant, a tenant cannot be evicted from the premises by a
writ court on the basis of an order under Section 144
CrPC. This Court, therefore, deprecated the practise of
writ court intervening in private disputes.
21. Rather recently in P.R. Murlidharan v. Swami
Dharmananda Theertha Padar [(2006) 4 SCC 501] P.K.
Balasubramanyan, J. (as His Lordship then was) in a
concurring but a separate opinion held that it would be
an abuse of the process for the petitioner to approach the
writ court seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the
police authorities to protect his property without first
establishing his possession in an appropriate civil court.
The learned Judge made very pertinent observations by
saying that: (SCC p. 506, para 17)"
7. In the light of the submissions of the parties and considering
that the disputed questions of fact are involved in this petition and also in
the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhey
Shayam & Anr. (Supra), no relief can be extended to the petitioner. As
such, this petition is dismissed.
8. Pending I.A., if any, stands dismissed.
9. It is open to the petitioner, if so advised, may avail the
alternative remedy by way of approaching the competent civil court. If the
petitioner does so, the concerned court shall examine the matter on its own
merit and also without being prejudiced by this order.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
