Writ petition regarding claim of encroachment removal order on public land dismissed due to lack of documentary evidence substantiating petitioners' alleged adverse possession or title.
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. 4340 of 2008
..Respondents
-----
Coram: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
For the Petitioners : None For the State : Mr. Vineet Prakash, A.C. to S.C. ( L& C). -----
06/05.09.2019 Heard the parties.
The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 24.04.2008 passed in B.P.L.E. Appeal No. 131/2007-08, B.P.L.E. Appeal No. 134/07-08, B.P.L.E. Appeal No. 135/2007-08, B.P.L.E. Appeal No. 138 of 2007-08, B.P.L.E. No. 139/2007-08 & B.P.L.E. Appeal No. 144/2007-08 and order dated 31.1.2008, passed by respondent no. 3 in B.P.L.E. Case No. 34/2007-08, B.P.L.E. Case No. 40/2007-08, B.P.L.E. Case No. 38/2007-08, B.P.L.E. Case No. 30/2007-08, B.P.L.E. Case No. 20/2007-08 and B.P.L.E. Case No. 36/2007-08.
It is the case of the petitioners that the land, which forms the subject matter of encroachment proceedings, was never a public land and the petitioners had a valid title over the said land on account of adverse possession as well as on account of gift. It has been stated that based on an order passed on 20.09.2007 in W.P.(PIL) No. 4105 of 2006, an encroachment proceeding was initiated, in which petitioners had appeared and filed a show cause stating therein about their possession and that there was a bona fide dispute of title. It has further been stated that the petitioners had based their claim on the voter list in which their names figured. On 31.1.2008, respondent no. 3 had disposed of all the cases and held that there was an encroachment in the public land and therefore petitioners were directed to remove the structures. Petitioners preferred separate appeals which however was dismissed on 24.4.2008. The entire basis for initiation of encroachment proceeding appears to be an order passed in W.P.(PIL) No. 4105 of 2006, which led to initiation of encroachment proceeding and finally an order for removal of encroachment having been passed by respondent no. 3. Save and except making vague statements, the petitioners have been unable to bring on record any documentary evidence which would have substantiated their case that they are title holders with respect to the
-2-
subject matter of encroachment proceedings. In fact, the petitioners have merely relied upon the voter list which contains their names but the same would not be a sufficient ground to come to a conclusion that the petitioners have any right, title and possession over the land in question. From the enquiry report, it appears that the petitioners had constructed temporary structures along with Khatals which they were running in the residential colonies without there being any valid documentary proof of their title. The enquiry report further reveals that the land in which the encroachment was made was a public land and therefore on such consideration, the petitioners were rightly directed to be evicted from the public land.
There being no error either in the order passed by respondent no. 3 or the order dated 24.04.2008, passed by the appellate authority, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.
Rakesh/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioners can establish a valid title to public land claimed as encroachment through adverse possession or voter list entries.
Chatu Matho
Ram Krishna Gorai
Satyaban Patra
Lal Mohan Mahato
Madan Gorai
Swapan Pal
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
