Allowed

Ms Mohan Timber Through Its Power Of Attorney Holder Umesh Jain v. Union Of India Through Chairman Ministry Of Steel And Ors.

Jharkhand HC16 Jul 2018WPC/221/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a notice to remove unauthorized construction of a saw mill. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the Estate Officer, ensuring a hearing within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to prefer representation before Estate Officer for hearing within six weeks; order to remove construction stayed pending such hearing.

Ms Mohan Timber Through Its Power Of Attorney Holder… — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No.221 of 2018

¶2

¶3

M/s. Mohan Timber, Bokaro.

¶4

.......... Petitioner.

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

The Union of India through Chairman, Ministry of Steel, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi 11011.

¶7

State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro.

¶8

Steel Authority of India, Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

¶9

Bokaro Steel Plant through its Chief Executive Officer, Bokaro.

¶10

Executive Director, Town Administration, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro.

¶11

Assistant Manager (TA-Land), Bokaro Steel Plant, Town Services Department, Nagar Sewa Bhawan, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro.

¶12

.......... Respondents.

¶13

¶14

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶15

----For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Gupta, Advocate For the UOI : Mrs. Bakshi Vibha, Advocate For the State : A.C. to G.A. For the SAIL : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate -----

¶16

Order No.03 Date: 16.07.2018

¶17

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order/ letter no.TA/LRA/2017/2313 dated 1^st December, 2017 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) issued under the signature of the respondent no.6Assistant Manager (TA-Land), Bokaro Steel Plant, Town Services Department, Bokaro, whereby the petitioner, who is carrying out the business of saw mill under the name and style of M/s. Mohan Timber, has been directed to remove the unauthorized construction.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

On perusal of the impugned letter dated 1^st December, 2017, it appears that in course of inspection it was noticed by the authorities of the respondent-Bokaro Steel Limited that the petitioner was running timber business/saw mill under the name and style of M/s. Mohan Timber situated in Mouja Ukrid. According to the respondents, the place occupied by the petitioner is an encroachment of the land of Bokaro Steel Limited over which the petitioner was found to have made unauthorized Pucca construction. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to remove the said unauthorized construction within 48 hours failing which necessary steps would be taken against it.

¶20

The case of the petitioner is that it has been in possession of the said land for about 40 years. The licence for carrying out the saw

¶21

-2-

¶22

mill business at the said place has been issued by the Bokaro Steel Limited as well as under the Factories Act. The petitioner also is a registered dealer with the Commercial Taxes Department.

¶23

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner is given liberty to prefer a representation before the concerned Estate Officer of the respondent-Bokaro Steel Limited. On receipt of the said representation, the said authority shall take up the same and pass appropriate order, after providing due opportunity of hearing to the representative of the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation, unless an order has already been passed against the petitioner under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.

¶24

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed with the aforesaid liberty and direction.

¶25

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶26

Sanjay/

Ms Mohan Timber Through Its Power Of Attorney Holder Umesh Jain v. Union Of India Through Chairman Ministry Of Steel And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Mohan Timber Through Its Power Of Attorney Holder Umesh Jain v. Union Of India Through Chairman Ministry Of Steel And Ors.

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

Lakshmi Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Vijay Shankar Alias Chun Chun Vs The Union Of India Through C B I

Om Prakash Choubey Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Ganga Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ms Maa Mundeshwari Enterprises Represented through One of Its Partner Lalit Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Industry Mines and Geology

Ravindra Nath Mukherjee Alias Ravi Mukherjee Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Department of Home