Jharkhand High Court Refuses To Interfere With Administrative Order Passed To Maintain Law & Order Amid Land Dispute
The Jharkhand High Court has refused to interfere with an administrative order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer to maintain law and order amid a land dispute, holding that disputed questions relating to encroachment and identification of land cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court observed that such disputes require evidence and are appropriately decided by a civil court rather than in writ jurisdiction.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi was hearing a writ petition challenging an order dated 10 April 2012 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas, directing deployment of force to restore possession of certain land in favour of a private respondent.
The petitioner claimed that his father had purchased eight decimals of land in 1979 through a registered sale deed, got the land mutated in his name, and remained in peaceful possession thereafter. According to the petitioner, he later learnt that the Sub-Divisional Officer had directed police deployment to hand over possession of the land to respondent no. 5 on the basis of an enquiry report, following which he was forcibly dispossessed.
The State opposed the petition, submitting that the impugned order had been passed solely to maintain law and order. It informed the Court that, pursuant to an earlier direction of a coordinate Bench, the Deputy Commissioner had conducted an enquiry, which revealed that respondent no. 5 had purchased the land through a registered sale deed, sought official measurement of the property, and was found to be in possession. It was further submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, respondent no. 5 had transferred the property to respondent no. 6, in whose favour mutation had also been effected.
The High Court noted that respondent no. 5 had approached the police alleging attempts by certain persons to forcibly encroach upon his land, whereafter the Sub-Divisional Officer passed the impugned order to preserve law and order. The Court further observed that despite specifically stating in the writ petition that the relevant sale deeds would be produced during the proceedings, the petitioner failed to place them on record. It noted that even the boundaries of the land allegedly purchased by the petitioner were not disclosed.
The Bench held that in cases involving allegations of encroachment, the issue cannot be decided in the absence of an agreed map or proper demarcation. While respondent no. 5 had obtained official measurement of the land through the Circle Officer, the petitioner had never approached the competent authority for identification of his land. The Court observed that no finding regarding encroachment could be reached on the basis of oral assertions alone and that the existence of disputed questions of fact barred the exercise of writ jurisdiction. It remarked that if such disputed factual issues arise, “the answer is flatly no” to the question whether they can be adjudicated under Article 226.
The High Court also reiterated that judicial review over executive actions taken to maintain public order is limited. Unless abuse of power, extraneous considerations, or patent illegality is established, courts ought not to interfere with decisions taken by administrative authorities in discharge of their law-and-order functions.
Finding no illegality in the Sub-Divisional Officer's order and noting that the petitioner had failed to approach the Court with complete material, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Case Title: Md. Shahid Raja v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.
Case Number: W.P. (C.) No. 4667 of 2012.
Appearance: Senior Advocate Mr. Raj Nandan Sahay, assisted by Mr. Kirtivardhan, Mr. Aditya Aman, and Mr. Ritesh Singh for the Petitioner. Mr. Vineet Prakash for the State. Mr. Vijay Bahadur Singh for Respondent No. 6.