The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a writ application challenging an eviction order passed against a petitioner who occupied a government quarter allotted for 10 days under humanitarian grounds beyond the allotted period, finding no reason to interfere.
The writ application was dismissed upholding the impugned eviction order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No. 3725 of 2015
Harendra Singh
… … Petitioner
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Vijay Kant Dubey, Advocate
4/06.08.2019 Heard Mr. Suraj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vijay Kant Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the BCCL.
This writ application has been directed against the order dated 28.04.2010 passed by the Estate Officer, P. B. Area, Dhanbad in Case No. 1 of 2007 by which an order of eviction has been passed against the petitioner. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 05.06.2015 passed by the learned District Judge X, Dhanbad in Title Misc. Appeal No. 81 of 2010 by which the order passed by the Estate Officer has been affirmed.
The factual aspect of the case reveals that the petitioner was allotted quarter no. A/7 C type situated at Basudeopur for a period of 10 days commencing from 04.06.2007 on a humanitarian ground. The petitioner being the employee of the BCCL continued to occupy the said quarter which led to initiation of proceeding against him under the provision of Public Premises (Unauthorised Occupants) Act by the Estate Officer, P. B. Area, BCCL. The petitioner had filed a show-cause in which a stand has been taken that the house was constructed by his grand-father and therefore he has a valid right, title and interest over the said plot. However neither any plot no. nor any details/documents have been submitted by the petitioner.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner is taking undue advantage of the humanitarian ground extended to him by continuing in occupation of the quarter
-2-
which had been allotted to him. Accordingly, the Estate Officer has passed an order directing the petitioner to vacate the quarter which has been upheld by the District Judge X, Dhanbad in Title Misc. Appeal No. 81 of 2010.
The petitioner has miserably failed to justify the occupation of government quarter beyond the period of its allotment and in such circumstances therefore, I do not find any reason to cause interference in the impugned order.
This writ application stands dismissed.
R Shekhar Cp 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order directing eviction of the petitioner for unauthorized occupation of government quarters should be interfered with.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Harendra Singh
Bharat Coking Coal Limited
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court