2025:JHHC:21282 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.3595 of 2025 1. LILAWATI DEVI @ LILA DEVI, age 74 years, W/o Arjun Oraon, R/o Timrha, Khunti, P.O.+P.S. Karra, Khunti, Jharkhand-835209 2. YASHODA ORAON, age 75 years, W/o Late Kaila Oraon, R/o H. No.13 New Area Gandhi Nagar, Hinoo, P.O.+P.S. Doranda, Ranchi, Jharkhand- 834002 3. KALPANA TOPPO, age 40 years, W/o Yashwant Oraon, R/o Timrha, Khunti, P.O.+P.S. Karra, Khunti, Jharkhand-835209 4. YASHWANT KUMAR ORAON, age 42 years, S/o Late Kaila Oraon, R/o H. No.13 New Area Gandhi Nagar Hinoo, P.O.+P.S. Doranda, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002. …… Petitioners Versus 1. STATE OF JHARKHAND, through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi, Project Building, PO- Dhurwa, PS- Jagannathpur, Dist-Ranchi 834004. 2. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, RMC, Kutchery Road, Ranchi, P.O. Ranchi G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834001 3. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, RMC, Kutchery Road, Ranchi, P.O. Ranchi G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834001 4. CITY ADMINISTRATOR, RMC, Kutchery Road, Ranchi, P.Ο. Ranchi G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834001 5. APRAJITA PANDEY, age not known, W/o not known 6. PRAMILA PANDEY, age not known, D/o not known 7. SONPARI PANDEY, age not known, D/o not known 8. SHEELA PANDEY, age not known, D/o not known 9. DABLOO PANDEY, age not known, S/o not known All R/o New Area Gandhi Nagar Hinoo, P.O.+P.S. Doranda, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002. …... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR --------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Shubhashis Rasik Soren, Advocate Ms. Shobha Gloria Lakra, Advocate Ms. Mrinalini Adela Tete, Advocate Ms. Preeti Hembrom, Advocate Ms. Singi Sharon Demta, Advocate For the State : Mr. Zaid Imam, A.C to S.C-VII For the Resp.-RMC : Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate - 1 - W.P.C No.3595 of 2025 2025:JHHC:21282 Mr. Karbir, Advocate --------- 02/Dated: 31 st July, 2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs :- (a) For issuance of an appropriate Writ/ Rule/ Direction particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent nos.2 to 4 to remove the encroachment done by the Respondent No.5 to 9 from the road in New Area Gandhinagar, Hinoo Ranchi as it is situated near to Mauja Hinoo, Khata no.35, Plot nos.811 and 814 measuring 8 dm under Doranda P.S. Ranchi, now also known as New area Gandhinagar Hinoo, Ward no.42 i.e; near to house of Petitioners; (b) For issuance of an appropriate Writ/ Rule/ Direction particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent nos.2 to 4 to construct proper road and drain outside the house of the Petitioners and Respondent nos.5 to 9 following the proper norms. 2. The objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the State that it is nothing but a malicious prosecution. A writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for settling the personal enmity or neighbourhood dispute. It is an extraordinary remedy available and can be invoked only for protecting the right. In an ordinary litigation, the intention of the party may not be important, but in the writ jurisdiction, the intention/ malicious prosecution of writ petitioner has to be looked into. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. From the argument and pleading of the petitioners, it appears that the petitioner Nos.1 & 2 are old and infirm ladies and they have purchased certain properties in the - 2 - W.P.C No.3595 of 2025 2025:JHHC:21282 impugned mohalla, the description of which has been given in para -4 of the writ petition, which reads as under:- “The land situated at Mauja Hinoo, Khata No.35, Plot Nos.811 & 814 measuring 8 dm under Doranda P.S. Ranchi, now also known as new area Gandhinagar Hinoo, Ward no.42” 5. It appears that the petitioners had made a complaint against the private respondent Nos.5 to 9 that they have constructed a septic tank on a common road. It further appears that the father of the respondent No.5 has filed a petition under Section 144 Cr.P.C being M. Case No.3230/2001, (Kashinath Pandey & Ors. Vs. Leelawati Devi & Ors). It also appears that the respondent No.5 has not participated in the said proceeding, but the said proceeding has been converted under Section 147 Cr.P.C and ultimately, an adverse order against the respondent No.5 to 9 has been passed vide order dated 04.08.2004 in the above proceeding, which has been brought on record by filing Annexure – 3. 6. It has been alleged that in spite of the adverse order, that order has not been implemented and ultimately the public has implemented the order, which is evident from the Annexure–9 dated 27.08.2024 – “जसस कजत हकर जहन गव क गजण न अव सजक टक क वस कर जय।" It has further been alleged that some construction has been made by the respondent No.5 & 9 on a public road for which several complaints have been made to the Ranchi Municipal authorities, but they have taken no action and as such the present writ petition has been filed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners while referring to - 3 - W.P.C No.3595 of 2025 2025:JHHC:21282 Sections 453 & 534 of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 has submitted that the Municipal authorities are under obligation /duty to stop illegal construction in public space and even in the private space. If any complaint is made, the Municipal authorities are duty bound to remove the illegal structure. It has been further submitted by referring to Annexure– 5 of the writ petition that the Municipal authorities had gone for removal of unauthorized construction, but that has been resisted by the respondent No.5 to 9 and due to which that has not been removed. 8. On the basis of above pleading and argument, it has been submitted that the prayer made in the present writ petition should be allowed. 9. Learned counsel for the State-respondent including the counsel for the Ranchi Municipal Corporation, have opposed the prayer stating that it is nothing but misuse of the process of the Court as has been approached for settling private/ neighbourhood dispute. 10. Having heard counsel for the parties and from perusal of the record, it appears that both the parties have purchased land. It further appears that a public road has been proposed through the raiyati land of the petitioners and the private respondents i.e. 13 ft. from the side of the petitioners and 7ft. from the side of the private respondents. It further appears that there was some dispute regarding the construction of nala and ultimately nala has been constructed on the side of the petitioners for which - 4 - W.P.C No.3595 of 2025 2025:JHHC:21282 several complaints have been made. It further appears that there was several litigation between the parties including the criminal case i.e. SC/ ST case being SC ST P.S. Case No.17 of 2021. Para – 25 of the writ petition is relevant which is quoted herein below :- “25. That the Petitioners fear that now that their criminal cases have also been registered against the Respondent nos.5 to 9 being SC ST P.S case no.0017/ 2021 dated 11.03.2021 u/s 504, 506 I.P.C r/w sec. 3(1)(s) SC ST Act 2015 and Doranda P.S. case no.186/ 2024 dated 09.08.2024 u/s 126(2), 115(2), 74, 76, 352, 351 (2)(3)(5) B.N.S r/w sections 3(1)(s) SC ST Act, and the Police officials are also not taking their matter seriously, as till date they have not taken any action against them, the Petitioners have reasonable apprehension that the Respondent nos.5 to 9 might either harm them or their family members, as the Respondent no.10 is already involved in the murder case of her husband.” It further appears that the order contained in Annexure – 3 has been implemented by the petitioners without taking any legal recourse. Thus, it is clear that it is a private dispute between the petitioners and the private respondents. The private respondents want proposed road through the raiyati land of the petitioners. It is a case of easement. It further appears that proceeding under Section 147 Cr.P.C has been initiated and order has also been passed. It is also clear that the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction under the SC/ ST (POA) Act against the private respondents. 11. From the above fact, it is evident that it is out and out a private dispute between the parties and it can be resolved only through ordinary litigation and not by invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of the Writ Court. 12. The extra ordinary jurisdiction of the Writ Court is - 5 - W.P.C No.3595 of 2025 2025:JHHC:21282 available to a person who approaches the Court with clean hands as well as with clear mind. For settling the score with the neighbours or for settling private score over the private individual, the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Writ Court cannot be invoked. This jurisdiction cannot be invoked to harm the neighbours. 13. In the present case, there is a dispute between the parties over the right of easement i.e. a proposed road and construction of nala. This can only be resolved by ordinary jurisdiction and not by invoking the writ jurisdiction. Invoking the writ jurisdiction under such circumstances is nothing but misuse of the process of Court. 14. Since the writ jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked for settling the neighbourhood dispute, the present writ petition is, hereby, dismissed with a cost of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) to be deposited by the petitioners before the JHALSA, Ranchi, within a month from today. If the cost is not deposited, the Registrar General of this Court is directed to take appropriate steps for realization of the same from the concerned petitioners. 15. With the above observation and direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of. 16. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Ravi-Chandan/- - 6 - W.P.C No.3595 of 2025