Dismissed

Jagdish Prasad Singh v. Jharkhand State Housing Board

Jharkhand HC7 Aug 2019WPC/1569/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought allotment of adjoining land termed Chitput land under specific Rules. Court held petitioner barred as already allotted a MIG house. Found adjoining land developed, not Chitput. Dismissed writ and directed Board to remove petitioner's alleged encroachment.

What did the court decide?

Writ application dismissed. Board directed to take action for removal of encroachment by the petitioner.

Jagdish Prasad Singh Vs Jharkhand State Housing Board — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W. P. (C) No. 1569 of 2012

¶3

¶4

Jagdish Prasad Singh … … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Jharkhand State cum Housing Board through its Chairman, having its office at Harmu, Ranchi

¶7

Estate Manager, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Harmu, Ranchi

¶8

Executive Engineer, Jharkhand State Housing Board, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur

¶9

Estate Officer, Jharkhand State Housing Board, East Singhbhum at … …

¶10

Jamshedpur Respondents

¶11

¶12

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --For the Petitioner : Mr. Arbind Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate ---

¶13

6/07.08.2019 Heard Mr. Arbind Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶14

The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to allot to the petitioner the waste land situated in the eastern boundary of the petitioner’s land in terms of Rule 30 (Ga) of the Jharkhand State Board (Residential Estate Management and Settlement) Rules, 2004.

¶15

It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a small portion of land adjoining the house allotted to him by the Housing Board comes within the definition of a Chitput land and the Housing Board under its rules are bound to settle the same in favour of the petitioner. It has further been stated that the Chitpur land can be allotted only to such persons who are the allottees of the adjoining area. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to Rule 30 (Ga) of the Jharkhand State Board (Residential Estate Management and Settlement) Regulation, 2004.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents – Housing Board has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and has referred to regulation 2 (XXXI) of the Jharkhand State Housing Board Regulation 2004 which defines a Chitput land and has stated while referring to the same that a Chitput land can be settled provided, it has not been

¶17

-2-

¶18

earmarked for an independent plot and/or it has not been developed. Learned counsel further has referred to Regulation 8( (Gha) by stating that since the petitioner has already been allotted a house, he is precluded from claiming any further house or plot from the State Housing Board.

¶19

The factual aspect of the case reveal that the petitioner was allotted a house bearing no. 161/2-1 at Adityapur Housing Colony having an area of 1053 sq. feet by the Jharkhand State Housing Board. The said allotment was made to the petitioner vide allotment letter dated 29.08.1990 and subsequently a hire purchase agreement was executed in favour of the petitioner on 19.06.1993. The petitioner claims that adjoining the residential house of the petitioner, the Board has a waste land comprising of approximately 1000 sq. feet and the petitioner has represented the authorities requesting them to allot the said piece of land in his favour.

¶20

In the counter affidavit which has been filed by the respondents, it has been stated that the land which was adjoining to the house of the petitioner is a valuable land of the Board and it was to be converted into a proper independent plot and was proposed to be allotted to the eligible candidate through lottery. The supplementary counter affidavit has also been filed by the Board in which it has been stated that in view of the provisions of Regulation 8 (Gha) of the Regulation 2004, allotment of the adjoining land to the house of the petitioner is clearly barred since the petitioner already has a MIG house which has been allotted to the petitioner. It has also been stated in the said affidavit that the petitioner is in unathorised occupation of land adjacent to his house and therefore the petitioner has invited an action against him under Section 59 read with Section 83/A of the JSHB Act, 2000.

¶21

It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been allotted a MIG house by the Housing Board for which a Hire Purchase Agreement was executed on 19.06.1993. The claim of the petitioner therefore, is with respect to the adjoining plot which according to the petitioner is a Chitput land and is a waste land and therefore, he be allotted the said piece of land. The regulations which has been brought on record in the supplementary counter affidavit does not at all contain any provision

¶22

-3-

¶23

which would indicate that the petitioner has a right to claim an adjacent land since the land in question cannot be described to be a Chitput land. For this purpose, reference has been made to Regulation 2 (XXXI) which defines a Chitput land which includes a small portion of land which has not been developed and/or has not been allotted. The communication of the Executing Engineer of the Board dated 22.08.1994 reveals that the adjoining plot which the petitioner claim had been measured and it was found that the same comprises an area of the MIG plot and the same is also a developed plot of land. Therefore in view of such verification, the petitioner now cannot contend that it is a Chitput Land or a waste land and which does not come within the purview of Section 2 (XXXI) of the Regulation 2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to Regulation 30 (Ga) of the Regulation, but the same would also not applicable in view of the fact that the adjoining land is not a Chitput land as indicated above as also considering Regulation 8 (Gha) which deprives a person who already have been allotted a plot or house.

¶24

The petitioner in none of the circumstances can claim eligibility to claim the adjoining portion of the land which belongs to the Housing Board. Therefore, no direction can be passed to the respondent – authorities for allotting the adjoining land in favour of the petitioner. Statement has been made in the supplementary counter affidavit that the petitioner is in occupation of a portion of land for a considerable length of time. As has been indicated above the land comprises an area of MIG plot and therefore, if the same is encroachment free, the Board can very well take steps for allotment of the same to an eligible person in terms of the procedure which leads to such allotment. Since it appears that the petitioner has encroached upon the said piece of land, the respondents – Board is directed to take immediate and speedy action against the petitioner for removal of the encroachment in accordance with law.

¶25

This writ application stands dismissed with the aforementioned observations.

¶26

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)

¶27

R Shekhar Cp 2

Jagdish Prasad Singh v. Jharkhand State Housing Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Prasad Singh v. Jharkhand State Housing Board

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

Harendra Singh Vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Anr.

M/S Deepak Enterprises Vs Ranchi Municipal Corporation And Ors.

Seema Bodra Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Ragho Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary and Ors.

Baraik Manohar Singh Vs Yamuna Devi and Anr.

Ghujeshwar Bedia Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.