Jharkhand High Court
Ramesh Prasad Yadav vs State Of Jharkhand on 10 January, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
C.M.P. No. 387 of 2024
----
Ramesh Prasad Yadav, aged about 64 years, son of Shiv Prasad Yadav,
residents of Holding No.QA-137 Kashidih, PO+PS Sakchi, Town-
Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum- 814 112 ..... Petitioner(s)
-- Versus --
1.State of Jharkhand, represented by Government Pleader, Jharkhand,
Jamshedpur, PO and PS Sakchi, Jamshedpur
2.Deputy Commissioner (District Collector) of Singhbhum (East), at
Jamshedpur, PO+PS-Bistupur, District Singhbhum (East)
3.Deputy Collector In-charge, BPLE Act 1956 (SDO), Jamshedpur, PO and
PS Sakchi, District East Singhbhum
4.The Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited a Public Limited Company now
Tata Steel Limited, incorporated under Companies Act, 1956, PO and PS
Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur, District Singhbhum (East)
5.Chairman, Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee, Jamshedpur
constituted and formed under Bihar Orissa Municipal Act, 1923, having its
office at Jamshedpur, PO and PS Sakchi, District Singhbhum (East)
...... .... ...Opposite Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner(s) :- Mr. Sahay Gaurav Piyush, Advocate
For the Opp. Party No.4 :- Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate
For the Opp. Party No.5 :- Mr. V.K. Roy, Advocate
----
5/10.01.2025 Heard Mr. Sahay Gaurav Piyush, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner, Mr. Pratyush Kumar, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party
No.4 and Mr. V.K. Roy, the learned counsel for the Opposite party No.5.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 07.02.2024 passed by
learned Senior Judge, Senior Division-IV, Jamshedpur in Misc. Civil Application
No.87 of 2023 arising out Title Suit No.01 of 2008 whereby the petition filed
under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the
learned court.
3. Mr. Sahay Gauvav Piyush, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the petitioner has instituted Title Suit No.1 of 2008
against the Opposite Party for declaration that he has a valid license for his coal
and milk business in the suit property described in Scheduled A granted by the
defendants (particularly by defendant no.5) and its renewal from year to year
and not to dispossess the plaintiff from the said property so long the license
remains in force and further a permanent injunction be made.
4. He then submits that the property is having an area of 2500 sq.ft
situated in Kashidih area of Mouza Sakchi, Jamshedpur recorded in the
revisional survey of 1937 of Mouza Sakchi (Jamshedpur) in Plot No.2220 (P)
under Khata No.218. In this background, he submits that the petitioner has
filed a petition under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC before the learned court and the
learned court has erroneously rejected the said petition holding that the plaintiff
wants to elucidating the present status of the suit land and ascertain the
present market value of the suit property through the court which is not
permissible under the law. By way of drawing the attention of the Court to the
Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC he submits that the said Order and the Rule of local
investigation for ascertaining the market value and other criteria. He submits
that the said petition was filed for ascertaining the market value and inspite of
that the learned court has erroneously dismissed the same. On this ground he
submits that the said order may kindly be set aside and appropriate direction
may kindly be issued. He relied in the case of C/M Anjuman Intezamia
Masajid Varanasi v. Rakhi Singh and Others reported in 2022 SCC
OnLine All 396 and submits that it has been held therein that at any stage the
said petition can be filed.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Pratyush Kumar, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No.4 submits that the said order is
required to be read in totality and in view of the observation made in the earlier
paragraph even if erroneously two-three lines are stated that cannot be a
ground of allowing the petition. He submits that the petition was for the
possession and declaration of valid license and in this background, the learned
court has rightly passed the order. He relied in the case of Rajendra Prasad
Mahto v. Smt. Juha Bala Devi and Others reported in 2024 0 Supreme
(Jhk) 360.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Jamshedpur
Notified Area Committee/O.P.No.5 has adopted the argument of Mr. Pratyush
Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.4/Tata Steel
Limited.
7. It is an admitted position that the petitioner-herein has instituted
Title Suit No.1 of 2008 against the Opposite Party for declaring the valid license
for his coal and milk business in the suit property described in Schedule-A and
not to dispossess from the said property as well as for permanent injunction.
8. In this background, a petition under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC was
filed praying to assess the market value of the property in question. The
learned trial court after recording the argument of both the sides has come to
the conclusion that the suit instituted against the defendants for declaration and
permanent injunction and the case was fixed for plaintiff's evidence. In the
meantime, the said petition was filed and, in this background, the learned court
has come to the conclusion that the evidence by way of filing the said petition is
tried to be made out by the plaintiff and in view of that, it has been dismissed.
Against that order, this petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC stipulates that in any suit in which
the court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose
of elucidating any matter in dispute or of ascertaining the market value of any
property, or the amount of any mesne profit or damage or annual net profit, the
Court may issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to
make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court.
9. Under the above Rule, the Court has a discretion to order local
investigation or not. The object of local investigation is not such so much to
collect the evidence which can be taken in court, but to obtain evidence from its
peculiar nature and only be had on the spot. Cases of boundary disputes and
disputes about the identity of lands are instances when a Court should order a
local investigation under this rule. It is further not in dispute that at any stage
the said petition can be filed and it is for the Court to consider whether pleader-
commissioner is required to be appointed or not and the judgment relied by
Mr. Sahay Gaurav Piyush the learned counsel for the petitioner of the Allahabad
High Court is on the said subject.
10. In the case in hand, the suit was instituted for declaring the valid
license for his coal and milk business in the suit property described in Schedule-
A and not to dispossess from the said property as well as for permanent
injunction and if at the initial stage in absence of leading any evidence what
construed to file such petition to find out market value of the property in
question clearly suggest that by way of such petition the intention was to bring
on record something in favour of the plaintiff and if such a situation is there,
procuring the commissioner's report regarding such dispute is not maintainable
as because the Court cannot appoint the commissioner for collecting the
evidence even if certain erroneous observation is made in the impugned order.
The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India does not act as a Court of first appeal to reappreciate,
reweigh evidence or facts upon which determination under challenge is based.
Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw
when final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to
substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of inferior court or
tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to
set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental
principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 of Constitution of India
is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all
to justify, or finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come
to such a conclusion that court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such
discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of
justice. It has been pointed out that in the suit the evidences have just started
and in view of that the nature of the plaint in the suit can be weighed by way of
leading evidence in the plaintiff suit and filing of such petition at this stage was
not justified.
11. In the above background, the Court finds that there is no illegality
in the order of the learned court, and as such, C.M.P.No.387 of 2024 is
dismissed.
12. However, after leading the evidence, if such exigency arises of
filing such petition for appointment of pleader-commissioner, this order will not
preclude the petitioner to file such petition and that will be considered in
accordance of law.
11. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/
A.F.R.
