Disposed

Tulsi Dutta v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC8 Jul 2019WPC/2387/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that as a landlord, the petitioner is an interested person under Section 4 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 and is entitled to an opportunity of hearing before a final order is passed in encroachment proceedings initiated against the tenant.

What did the court decide?

Directs the concerned authority to provide the petitioner an opportunity of hearing in the encroachment proceeding if the original proceeding has not yet been decided.

Tulsi Dutta Vs The State Of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.2387 of 2017

¶2

¶3

Tulsi Dutta ……… Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad ………. 3. The Circle Officer, Govindpur Respondents ---------

¶6

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶7

--------For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Sr. S.C.-III ---

¶8

02/08.07.2019 This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the petitioner being a landlord has questioned the notices issued under Section 3 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956.

¶9

2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he is the landlord and has subletted the shop in favour of tenants who are in occupation of the said shop, upon whom notices under Section 3 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 has been issued, in consequence thereof, present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the notice, however, in course of argument, Mr. Sanjay Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is not questioning the notices as has been prayed in the writ petition rather by putting reliance upon Section 4 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, he wants an opportunity to put his defence before the concerned authority since being a landlord, he is interested party and to put his defence upon encroachment in a better manner in comparison to that tenant but such application has not been entertained, therefore, he is confining his prayer so that he may be provided an opportunity of hearing in the said proceeding.

¶10

3. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned Sr. S.C.-III appearing for the StateRespondent has not disputed the legal position as stipulated under Section 4 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, however, he submits that the writ petition was filed way back on 27.04.2017 and

¶11

as such there is every likelihood that the order might have been passed and if that be so, remedy is available elsewhere.

¶12

4. Upon this, Mr. Sanjay Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if the final order would have been passed by the authority, it goes without saying that order passed by the authority under Section 5 of the Act, 1956, is appeallable under Section 11 of the aforesaid Act before the appellate authority and therefore, an appropriate order may be passed to the effect that if a proceeding is still pending then, he may be provided an opportunity of hearing.

¶13

5. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and looking to their submissions the position of law so far as Section 4 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 is concerned, cannot be disputed which stipulates that person who is in encroachment or any other interested person who is having interest upon the said encroachment will have a right to put his defence before the concerned authority.

¶14

Here in the instant case, admittedly notices have been issued upon the tenants, the petitioner who is the landlord, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not having any interest and in view thereof, in pursuance to the provision under Section 4 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, he has a right to be heard by putting his defence in the encroachment proceeding if he is the landlord of the said premises, it cannot be denied that since this writ petition is of 27.04.2017 and the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, is a proceeding in the nature of a summary proceeding, therefore, there is every likelihood of the disposal of the said proceeding, if that be so, then the remedy is available under Section 11 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 who assail the aforesaid order, if any, before the appellate authority but if the order has not been passed certainly the petitioner will have a right to be heard in view of provision of Section 4 of the Act, 1956.

¶15

6. In view thereof, if the original proceeding has not yet been decided, the concerned authority will provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the final order.

¶16

7. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶17

8. It is made clear that if the final order has already been passed, the order passed by this Court as stipulated in the foregoing paragraph will lost its force.

¶18

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶19

Rohit/-

Tulsi Dutta v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tulsi Dutta v. The State Of Jharkhand 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

Mohan Rabidas Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Gopal Singh Bhumij Alias Gopal Bhumij Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Kanhai Soni Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Hamid Mian And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited through Its Manager Revenue Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Urban Development and Housing Department

Santosh Kumar Majee Vs State of Jharkhand