Dismissed

Suman Mishra And Ors. v. Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Jharkhand HC10 Aug 2016WPC/2668/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a notice for removal of encroachment under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956. The petitioners alleged violation of principles of natural justice and lack of due process by the State. The High Court held that the petitioners failed to establish title or ownership through the documents submitted. Consequently, the writ jurisdiction was not invoked, the interi

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Appellate Authority under Section 11 of the Act.

Suman Mishra And Ors. Vs Land Reforms And Revenue… — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W. P. (C) No. 2668 of 2016

¶3

Suman Mishra 2. Bindu Devi 3. Narendra Kumar Pathak 4. Radhika Devi 5. Pushpa Devi 6. Sandhya Devi 7. Ujjwal Ghosh 8. Bhama Devi 9. Shashi Pandey 10. Mritunjay Kumar 11. Samta Devi 12. Manoj Choudhary 13. Prabha Devi 14. Nitu Devi 15. Nita Devi 16. Annu Gupta 17. Puja Devi 18. Rekha Devi 19. Sushma Devi 20. Bina Devi ..... Petitioners vs.- 1. State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue & Land Reform, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi 2. Commissioner, Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi 3. Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi 4. Circle Officer, Ranchi .....Respondents.

¶4

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH

¶5

For the Petitioners : Mr. Rohit, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Md. Shamim Akhtar, G.A.III

¶6

8/10.8.2016

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶8

On 19th May, 2016 when the matter was taken up, the following order was passed taking note of the plea of the petitioners that without initiation of any proceeding or order of competent authority, steps are being taken to demolish the residential structures on the plots enumerated therein in terms of notice dated 29th April, 2016 (Annexure-4) issued under Section 6(2) of Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (Now Jharkhand) also impugned herein.

¶9

“ The matter was adjourned for today to enable the counsel for the State Government to seek instructions in the matter as the petitioners alleged that without initiation of any proceeding or order of competent authority, steps are being

¶10

¶11

taken to demolish the residential structures of the petitioners standing on Plot nos. 357, 358, 362, 364, 365P, 366, 296, 297, 299, 305, 205, 206, 207, village-Hehal, P.S.Sukhdeo Nagar, District-Ranchi. Challenge has also been made to notice dated 29th April, 2016 (Annexure-4) issued under Section 6(2) of Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (as adopted by the State of Jharkhand.)

¶12

Learned counsel for the State submits, on instructions, that to the knowledge of Circle Officer, Hehal, Ranchi no notice prior to issuance of the impugned notice have been issued upon the petitioners in the matter of removal of public encroachment. He however seeks time to file counter affidavit in the matter. Accordingly, 3 weeks' time is allowed for the said purpose.

¶13

In the meantime, the respondent are restrained from taking any coercive steps pursuant to the impugned order at Annexure-4 dated 29th April, 2016.

¶14

Counsel for the State would inform the respondent authorities today itself on phone of the instant order. List this case after 3 weeks i.e. on 16th June 2016 before which date Respondent-State should file their affidavit as per the standing order.”

¶15

The respondents thereafter have filed counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit as well. It is the specific stand of the respondents that on getting information from the Executive Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi that the acquired lands of Kanke Dam have been permanently encroached and used by some people, the land was measured by Anchal Amin and Amin of District Land Acquisition Office. On measurement of acquired lands of Kanke Dam of Mouza-Hesal, Kathar Gonda and Pandra etc., it was found that about 100-150 people have encroached upon the public land of Kanke Dam. On the basis of the measurement report of the Amin, Encroachment Proceeding no. 01 of 2016-17, State vs. Gunanand Mahto and others, was initiated in the Court of Circle Officer, Hehal. The Circle Officer, Hehal passed an order to issue a general notice against the earmarked persons and unknown persons for removal of encroached lands under Section 3 of the Act of 1956 and place the matter on 29th April, 2016. These encroachers had also been informed and directed to remove their encroachments through local daily newspaper. In spite of such notice and information, they neither removed the encroachments from the said public by themselves nor produced any documents in

¶16

¶17

support of their claims over the lands in question. Thereafter on 29th April, 2016, steps were taken for removal of encroachments from the said public land under Section 6(2) of the Act of 1956, fixing the date of removal of encroachment on 6th May, 2016. Magistrate and police force were deputed for the said purpose.

¶18

Respondents have enclosed the paper cutting through which notice was published for removal of encroached lands under Section 3 of Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (Now Jharkhand) and individual notices were issued to all encroachers also which are annexed as Annexure: D Series to supplementary counter affidavit.

¶19

Petitioners have filed their rejoinder affidavit to that and alleged that they were not made party in Encroachment Proceeding no. 1 of 2016-17. They also contended that name of these petitioners as well as area alleged to be under encroachment by them, have also not been indicated in the daily newspaper.

¶20

In the writ petition, petitioners have enclosed documents at Annexure-1 series, which are said to be agreement for sale of certain lands situate under Khata nos. 47, 8, 47, 87 Plot nos. 237, 262, 192, 292, 298, 297, 296 of Thana Sukhdeo Nagar, District Ranchi with different vendors. According to them, after execution of agreement for sale, they have been given liberty to construct their houses for their shelter and time has been given for payment of entire consideration amount. They have put temporary structures over the land since 10-15 years and invested considerable amount of money. According to the petitioners, the order impugned is without giving any opportunity to the petitioners to show cause and in violation of principles of nature justice.

¶21

Upon perusal of the documents enclosed to the writ petition as agreement for sale to establish the case on the part of the petitioners, they do not however make out a case for title or ownership of the petitioners over the respective plots as claimed by them. No other document of title or ownership is enclosed to the writ petition. Petitioners have enclosed

¶22

¶23

certain electricity bills and photographs showing certain structures largely asbestos roof structure and certain receipts of municipal Subidha Shulk issued by Ranchi Municipal Corporation. The receipt also indicates that it cannot be used to claim any right, title and interest or correctness of the building plan. It is in lieu of the facilities provided by the Municipal Corporation.

¶24

In the wake of the aforesaid facts, this Court is not satisfied that petitioners are entitled for any discretionary relief under writ jurisdiction of this Court as question of facts relating to right, title and ownership of the petitioners have not been established on their part. However, it is not out of place to mention here that there is a remedy of appeal under the provisions of the Act of 1956, under Section 11 thereof. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned notice under Section 6(2) of the Act for removal of encroachment, petitioners are at liberty to invoke the remedy of appeal before competent authority and take all available grounds of facts and law in their favour. However, no ground is made out for interference in the matter under writ jurisdiction of this Court.

¶25

In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty to the petitioners to approach the Appellate Authority. The interim order stands vacated accordingly.

¶26

Needless to say, if the petitioners prefer an appeal within a period of two weeks, the Appellate Authority would consider the question of delay sympathetically in view of the fact that petitioners were pursuing their grievances in the present writ petition. However, no observations made hereinabove would cause prejudice to the case of either of the parties in the appellate proceeding.

¶27

(Aparesh Kumar Singh,J)

¶28

Suman Mishra And Ors. v. Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suman Mishra And Ors. v. Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Ayodhya Singh Vs Jharkhand State Housing Board Through Managing Director And Ors.

Baleshwar Pandey Vs the Steel Authority of India Limited through the Chairman and Ors.

Biplab Sharma Vs Transport

Geeta Chandra Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Sunit Bouri Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Emplers in Relation to the Man Vs Their Workman Being Represente