Disposed

Suresh Prasad Sah v. the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Road Construction Department

Jharkhand HC10 Jul 2018WPC/3237/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court examined a writ petition challenging the demolition of part of the petitioner's building without notice. It held that encroachment removal must follow statutory procedures under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 and directed the authorities to adhere thereto.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondent authorities to follow the procedures prescribed under the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 for any further steps in the encroachment removal case.

Suresh Prasad Sah Vs the State of Jharkhand through the… — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 3237 of 2018

¶3

Suresh Prasad Sah ….. Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶6

The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar

¶7

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Madhupur, Deoghar

¶8

The Circle Officer, Sarath, Deoghar ….. Respondents

¶9

¶10

CORAM

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶12

¶13

For the Petitioner: Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma For the State: Mr. A.C to G.A

¶14

¶15

02/10.07.2018

¶16

At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the office are ignored.

¶17

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents restraining them from demolishing the part of the building/house of the petitioner situated over Plot No. 402, Khata No. 58, measuring an area of 0.4 decimal & 0.3 decimal, Mouza-Chitra, Thana-Sarath, Thana No. 598, DistrictDeoghar in connection with Encroachment Case No. 01/2017-18.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the building/house situated over the land in question, which has been inherited by him from his ancestor, namely, Late Bishan Sah, who had acquired the same vide order dated 29.09.1970 passed in Privileged Person Case No. 59/1970-71. The grievance of the petitioner is that during the encroachment drive, no notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner by filing a representation before the respondent No.3 on 27.06.2018 has denied the fact that the building/house situated over the land in question is under encroachment. However, the part of the petitioner’s building/house, which was being used as a shop, was demolished on 28.06.2018. The encroachment drive is still continuing and the petitioner apprehends that the rest part of his building/house may also be demolished by the respondent authorities.

¶19

Learned A.C to G.A submits that the respondent-authorities have initiated the encroachment removal drive in Road No. 210 on Chitra-Tedhi More. Since the petitioner has constructed the said building/house by encroaching upon the

¶20

public land, the respondent authorities have taken appropriate action for demolition of the same.

¶21

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and looking into the contents of the present writ petition, it appears that the petitioner has specifically averred in paragraph 11 of the writ petition that neither any notice was served upon him nor the same was published in the newspaper to the effect that his building is being treated as an encroachment. The petitioner has also asserted that the said building/house has not been constructed by encroaching upon any public land. The said assertion of the petitioner requires factual determination. Moreover, it is a settled law that removal of any encroachment from the public land has to be done by the authorities under the procedures prescribed under the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 [in short ‘the Act, 1956’]. The respondent-authorities are thus directed to take any further step for removal of the encroachment from the public land in the present encroachment case following the procedures prescribed under the Act, 1956.

¶22

The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.

¶23

(RAJESH SHANKAR, J)

¶24

Satish/-

Suresh Prasad Sah v. the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Road Construction Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Prasad Sah v. the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Road Construction 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

MD Akhlaque Vs the State of Jharkhand

United Coal Works Union through Union Representative Naresh Prasad Singh Vs Union of India Ministry of Labour and Employment

Rcm Infrastructure Ltd. Represented Through Senior Manager Project Accounts Mr G Jagadeeswara Rao Vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Akhileshwar Singh Vs Rural Dev Dept

Syed Mohammad Qaisar Hassan And Anr. Vs Urban Development Department

Abul Kalam Alias Abul Kalam Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand