Arvind Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Deepankar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State and Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel appearing for the respondents- Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. (in short TISCO).

Prayer in this petition is made for a direction upon the respondent No. 4 to send all the documents appertaining to the land in question. Prayer is also made for restoring the status quo of the demolished building. Further prayer is made for direction upon the respondents to pay compensation along with heavy cost to the petitioner.

Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner along with his mother Smt. Shiv Kumari Devi had purchased the homestead land measuring an area of 77.5' ft x 24.5 feet =18987.5 sqft and in side measurement North side 75' ft, South side 80' ft, East side 240' ft, West side 250' ft with asbestos roofted three rooms thereof having built up area 350 sqft situated under Mouza Sakchi, P.S. Sakchi, Thana 1153 under R.S. Khat No. 51 old RS Plot No. 1921 (portion) corresponding to present survey settlement finally published in the year 1995-96 recorded under New Khata No. 69, New Plot No. 664, Area 17.90 metric hectare, within Jamshedpur notified area, Ward No. 7, which was registered before the District Sub-Registrar Office, Jamshedpur, on payment of consideration amount through power of attorney holder namely Sri Shiv Charan Prasad and Sri Ram Chandra Prasad. He submits that the said sale deed was executed before the District Sub-Registrar, Jamshedpur on 21.07.2009. He further submits that the dispute was prevailing between the TISCO and Sri Shiv Charan Prasad and others. He further submits that for that a title suit was also instituted, in which, the TISCO has lost the said suit and pursuant to that the TISCO has moved before the High Court in the second appeal, being Second Appeal No. 197 of 2009, which was also dismissed by the co-ordinate bench vide order dated 30.08.2018. He further submits that against the said dismissal, the TISCO has moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP Civil Diary No. 15661 of 2019. He submits that in the said SLP by way of order dated 10.05.2019, the notice was issued and direction was passed to maintain the status quo, however, on 01.09.2020, the respondent No. 4 came on the site along with the police force as well as the JCB machines and bulldozed the three rooms and boundary wall of the petitioner, in absence of any proceeding initiated under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act and in absence of any notice. He submits that in the counter affidavit of the TISCO as well as the respondents-State has also accepted the said fact, however, a plea has been taken that for maintaining the status quo order, the SDO has acted upon, as such, the action of the SDO is arbitrary in absence of any proceeding, as such, the petitioner is entitled for the prayer made in the instant writ petition.

Per contra, Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-TISCO submits that it was brought to the knowledge of the SDO that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed the order of status quo and the petitioner is violating the said order, in view of that only to maintain the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the SDO has acted upon. He submits that the petitioner has already moved before the Hon’ble Supreme court by way of filing the petition for his impleadment in the pending SLP, which was subsequently numbered as SLP (C) No. 12933 of 2019 and he has been directed to be impleaded by the order dated 07.03.2022. He submits that in the said SLP, the petitioner has also filed his counter affidavit, however, in the said counter affidavit, the petitioner has not disclosed about this proceeding pending before this court and to buttress his argument, he refers to Annexure-A of the counter affidavit. He further submits that the petitioner has violated the interim order of the Hon’ble Supreme court, in view of that the respondent No. 4 has only acted upon to maintain the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He further submits that once the petitioner has already moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and there was any violation of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner was required to bring all these facts before the Hon’ble Supreme court, where he has suppressed all these facts, however, he has filed the counter affidavit therein, but not disclosed about the pending proceeding before this court. He further submits that for the action in question by the respondent No. 4, he has passed an order dated 01.09.2020, which is not challenged in the writ petition. He submits that so far as compensation is concerned, this disputed question of fact cannot be the subject matter of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and petitioner is having the remedy to move before the competent court of civil jurisdiction for the compensation. He submits that petitioner is alleged to be the subsequent purchaser and in view of that he cannot be allowed to say that the order of the Hon’ble Supreme court is not applicable so far as this petitioner is concerned. On these grounds, he submits that this petition may kindly be dismissed.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State submits that the SDO has bona fidely acted and he has only protected the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as during the pendency of the SLP and also during the subsistence of the order of the status quo of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, he has tried to change the nature of the property, in view of that this writ petition may kindly be dismissed.

It is an admitted fact that the dispute arose between the TISCO and the vendors of the petitioner, for which, the title suit was filed by the TISCO, in which, the TISCO lost the case, pursuant to that the TISCO has moved before this court in S.A. No. 197 of 2009, which was also dismissed by this court by order dated 30.08.2018. Against the said dismissal, the TISCO has moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 12933 of 2019, in which, by order dated 10.05.2019, the notice was issued and direction was passed to maintain the status quo. The SDO (respondent No. 4), on 01.09.2020 has passed an order of removal of encroachment made by the petitioner and the said order of the SDO is not under challenge in the writ petition. After filing of the present writ petition, the petitioner has moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of filing the impleadment petition, which was allowed by order dated 07.03.2022. Before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, counter affidavit has also been filed, wherein it has not been disclosed about the pendency of the present writ petition before this court.

It was vehemently argued by Mr. Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that initially in the said SLP, the petitioner was not a party, in view of that the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not binding upon the petitioner, that argument cannot be accepted by this court in view of the fact the Hon’ble Supreme Court has already passed the order of status quo, which was between the TISCO and the vendors of the petitioner, as such, the status quo order was there to maintain by either of the parties.

Respondent No. 4 has acted when the nature of the area has been changed during the operation of the status quo order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further, the petitioner has already moved before the Hon’ble Supreme court, it was expected that he should disclose all these facts before the Hon’ble Supreme Court including the pendency of this writ petition, which has not been done by the petitioner.

In order to check multiplicity of proceedings pertaining to the same subject-matter and more importantly to stop the menace of soliciting inconsistent orders through different judicial förums by suppressing material facts either by remaining silent or by making misleading statements in the pleadings in order to escape the liability of making a false statement, the parties have to disclose the details of all legal proceedings and litigations either past or present concerning any part of the subject-matter of dispute which is within their knowledge. In case, according to the parties to the dispute, no legal proceedings or court litigations were or are pending, they have to mandatorily state so in their pleadings in order to resolve the dispute between the parties in accordance with law. Reference may be made to the case of K.Jayaram & Ors. Versus Bangalore Development Authority & Ors., reported in (2022) 12 SCC 815.

Admittedly, in the case in hand the petitioner  is already before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of filing the impleadment petition and the said proceeding was between the TISCO and the vendors of the petitioner, as such, he was required to disclose all these facts before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in view of the counter affidavit, it is an admitted position that the said facts have not been disclosed by the petitioner before the Hon’ble Supreme court. So far as the compensation is concerned, in such a disputed question of fact, as discussed hereinabove, which is required to be investigated and that can only be determined by way of detailed examination, which can better be made in a civil suit and can only be tried by the competent court of civil jurisdiction.

The damages / compensation can be awarded by this court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only in a case where some infringement of public law right is involved. For mere infringement of private-law right, public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not available. There is no doubt that the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very wide, however, there are well recognized limitations and the court has to be conscious of while it is called upon to exercise the writ jurisdiction and one of such limitation / restriction that the writ court should not enter into an issue which for its determination requires the parties to adduce the evidence.

In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the court finds that this is not a case to exercise the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As such, this petition is dismissed.