1. Heard the parties.

2. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of appropriate writ/rule/order/direction or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing Letter No. PO/TTK/Information/ 2020/21/554 (copy of which has been kept at Annexure-10 of this Writ Petition) whereby and where under the petitioner has been informed that the benefit of Rehabilitation & Resettlement including employment in lieu of land appertaining to C.S. Khata No.143, Plot No.894/5, R.S. Khata No.200, Plot No.1561, Area 18.85 acres situated in Mouza: Nagra within P.S.- Balumath, District- Latehar cannot be processed; as the aforesaid land has been verified by the Circle Officer, Balumath in Hal Khatiyan as “Gairmajarua Malik” and prayer has also been made for issuance of appropriate writ/rule/order/ direction commanding upon and directing the respondents to provide Rehabilitation and Resettlement benefits in lieu of the said land.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the land in question was settled by the ex- landlord to the original petitioner by virtue of Hukumnama. At the time of vesting, return was filed by the ex-landlord namely Kapil Mahto for the land settled in his name. After vesting of the land, the erstwhile Government of Bihar recognized the original petitioner as a tenant. After creation of the State of Jharkhand, the petitioner has paid rent for the land settled by him by the ex- landlord in lieu of grant of rent receipt. The Land Acquisition Officer, Latehar enquired from the Circle Officer, Balumath about the land for development of Tetaria Kharh Project, O.B. Dump. The Circle Officer, Balumath instituted Case Record 1/2009-10 for certification of raiyati interest. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Latehar on the basis of recommendation of the Circle Officer, Balumath made recommendation which is countersigned by Sub-Divisional Officer, Latehar for grant of Raiyati status of the land and the Additional Collector, Latehar on the basis of the said recommendation of the Circle Officer, Balumath, certified Raiyati status of the land and 17 (seventeen) Raiyats including the original petitioner was countersigned by the Deputy Commissioner. On 15.05.2012, the original petitioner made representation to the Project Officer, Tetaria Kharh, Collieries, Balumath that he had given consent to work on his land but no crop compensation was given and demanded compensation and employment. The Circle Officer, Balumath vide notice dated 05.06.2012 informed the petitioner that the land in question is in “Gaimajarua Khata.” The Government of India, Ministry of Coal vide notification dated 18.08.2015 published in Extra Ordinary Gazette; circulated Public Notice vide Hindi Daily Prabhat Khabar dated 07.09.2015, issued notification under Section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957 for acquisition of 73.55 hectares of land for coal mining. The grand children of the original petitioner made representation to the Project Manager, OCP Tetaria Kharh, praying therein that they have not received any compensation in lieu of the land in question, hence, they may be given employment as per their educational qualification. A tripartite meeting has been organized in the office of General Manager, Rajhara Area at 10:00 am for extension of Tetaria Kharh Project and ultimately vide the said Annexure10, the benefits Rehabilitation & Resettlement including employment in lieu of the said land was denied on the ground that in Hal Khatiyan, the land in question has been recorded as “Gairmajarua Malik”. It is contended by the petitioner that the original petitioner by remaining in the possession for a long time, has accrued Raiyati status.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sukh Dutt Ratra & Another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others reported in (2022) 7 SCC 508 wherein in the facts of that case where the respondent – State utilized the land of the appellants before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India for construction of a road and pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court, directing the State to initiate land acquisition proceeding. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued, compensation was paid to the other claimants who were similarly situated land owners as that of the appellants before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the appellants before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking compensation of the subject land but the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh relying upon a Full Bench decision of that Court wherein it was held that the matters involving disputed question of law and fact for determination on the starting point of limitation could not be adjudicated in the writ proceeding, disposed of the writ petition of the appellants before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India with liberty to file a fresh civil suit in accordance with law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that the right against the deprivation of property unless in accordance with procedure established by law, continues to be a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and in that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 and 142 of the Constitution of India, directed the State to treat subject lands as a deemed acquisition and appropriately disburse the compensation to the appellants in the same terms as the order of the Reference Court in respect of adjacent lands acquired, and submits that in this case also even though unlike the case of Sukh Dutt Ratra & Another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others (supra), no compensation or employment has been given to any similarly situated persons, as that of the petitioners but several persons have been given employment.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sharda Devi vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2003) 3 SCC 128 and submits that in para-36 of the said judgment it has been observed that the land or an interest in land pre-owned by the State cannot be the subject-matter of acquisition by the State, it is submitted that the facts of the case of Sharda Devi vs. State of Bihar & Another (supra) are different from the facts of this case because unlike the case of Sharda Devi vs. State of Bihar & Another (supra) in this case the respondent- State Government claims that its land has been acquired by the Central Government and the Central Government has every right to acquire such land but upon payment of compensation. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer made in this Writ Petition, be allowed.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent- State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the revenue record, as well as the C.S. Khatiyan show that the land in question is a “Gairmajaruwa Malik” land and according to revisional survey Khatiyan Register- II was maintained and rent receipt were not issued any further to Bharosi Mahto. The local enquiry team under the Circle Officer, Balumath was constituted and the team reported that the land in question is in the name of Anabad Bihar Sarkar. So, the land acquired is a Government land and is not the land of the original petitioner or anyone else on the date of its acquisition. It is next submitted that the petitioners ought to have filed Title Suit before the competent court; if at all they have any right, title and interest over the land in question but since the petitioners are not the owner of the land, the writ petition is not maintainable. It is next submitted that the sanctity of the R.S. Khatiyan cannot be objected and questioned, hence, mutation cannot be allowed in favour of the petitioners on the basis of C.S. Khata or Plot. It is then submitted that the publication of R.S. Khatiyan is presumed to be final under Section 84 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, and the notification of the State Government to act upon R.S. Khatiyan supersedes the order of the Deputy Commissioner.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent- State relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shri Sohan Lal vs. Union of India & Another reported in 1957 SCC OnLine SC 39 and submits that in paragraph-5 of the said judgment it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that a writ court should refrain from entering into a field of investigation which is more appropriate for a civil court in a properly constituted suit.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent- State next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Roshina T. vs. Abdul Azeez K.T. & Others reported in (2019) 2 SCC 329 paragraphs-13 to 16 of which read as under:-

“13. These questions, in our view, were pure questions of fact and could be answered one way or the other only by the civil court in a properly constituted civil suit and on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties but not in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the High Court.

14. It has been consistently held by this Court that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of the disputes relating to property rights between the private persons. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of statutory authority is alleged. In such cases, the Court has jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions to the authority concerned. It is held that the High Court cannot allow its constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies under the general law, civil or criminal are available. This Court has held that it is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a civil suit or application available to an aggrieved person. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution being special and extraordinary, it should not be exercised casually or lightly on mere asking by the litigant. (See Mohan Pandey v. Usha Rani Rajgaria [Mohan Pandey v. Usha Rani Rajgaria, (1992) 4 SCC 61] and Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal [Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal, (2003) 6 SCC 230] .)

15. In our view, the writ petition to claim such relief was not, therefore, legally permissible. It, therefore, deserved dismissal in limine on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy of filing a civil suit by Respondent 1 (writ petitioner) in the civil court.

16. We cannot, therefore, concur with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court when it unnecessarily went into all the questions of fact arising in the case on the basis of factual pleadings in detail (43 pages) and recorded a factual finding that it was Respondent 1 (writ petitioner) who was in possession of the flat and, therefore, he be restored with his possession of the flat by the appellant.” (Emphasis supplied)

and submits that the prayer under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not available to the petitioners in the facts of the case which involves disputed questions of fact which could be answered one way or the other only by the civil court in a properly constituted civil suit, hence, it is submitted that this Writ Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.7 to 10 submits that as per the provisions of Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 in case of any dispute in title of any person whose land has been acquired, can be referred to the tribunal constituted under the provisions of the said act for deciding the right, title and interest over the land in question and the same cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by this Court. It is next submitted that the land in question in respect of which the writ petitioners are claiming the compensation and employment is recorded as ‘Tanr-II’ nature of land registered in the name of ‘Anabad Bihar Sarkar’ which was acquired and vested in C.C.L under Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 vide S.O. No.397 (E) dated 08.02.2016. It is next submitted that the land in question is claimed to be the Government land which is shown to be used by the respondent Nos.7 to 10 for which a demand of Rs.29.78 crores has been raised by the State Government from these respondents including the land in question. In support of her contention that the disputed question of fact cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.7 to 10 relies upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Central Coalfields Limited & Others vs. Pawan Kumar passed in L.P.A. No.277 of 2019 dated 15.06.2023 and the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Raghu Oraon vs. Central Coalfields Limited & Others passed in W.P.(C) No.2280 of 2016 dated 04.01.2017 and also the judgment of a co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/d Muslim Ansari & Others vs. M/s Central Coalfields Ltd. & Others passed in W.P.(C) No.6602 of 2004 dated 19.07.2023. Hence, it is submitted that this Writ Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed.

10. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, the undisputed fact remains that in the last revisional survey which took place sometime in the year 2005 and when the final publication of the Record of Rights was made, the land in question was not recorded in the name of the original petitioner. The land in question was acquired sometime in the year 2016. The only basis for the claim of the petitioners is that a certificate was issued to the original petitioner under the signature of the Additional Collector countersigned by the Deputy Commissioner. On the other hand the respondent State as well as the respondent Nos.7 to 10 have categorically taken the stand that the land in question does not belong to the original petitioner or his ancestors. Section 84 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 envisages a presumption of correctness of the Record of Rights. So far as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sukh Dutt Ratra & Another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others (supra) is concerned, the judgment of the said case is distinguishable on two counts, firstly that the judgment in the said case was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 (1) and 142 of the Constitution of India which jurisdiction this Court does not have, secondly in that case similarly situated land owners who filed writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh, were given the compensation which is not a fact in this case. In view of the serious challenge to the claim of the original petitioner to be the owner of the land which is the very foundational fact and basis for the claim of the original petitioner for compensation and employment, this Court is of the considered view that as no document of ownership of the land could be produced by the original petitioner except a Raiyati certificate issued by the Additional Collector countersigned by the Deputy Commissioner, this Court is not inclined to accept the original petitioner to be the owner of the land and in view of the serious disputed questions of fact involved, this Court is of the considered view that the same can at best be adjudicated in a properly constituted suit but cannot be adjudicated in this petition in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

11. Accordingly, this Writ Petition, being without any merit is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to file a properly constituted suit, if so advised.