Disposed

Suyogya Topno v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC7 Nov 2019WPC/5792/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disposing of a writ petition challenging a notice regarding alleged land encroachment. The Court held that since the notice required adjudication of factual aspects and the petitioner had already approached the authority, the Court refused to quash the notice.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue proceedings before the authority and liberty to add relevant documents to his reply.

Suyogya Topno Vs the State of Jharkhand — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P (C) No. 5792 of 2019

¶3

Suyogya Topno .…… Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

1.The State of Jharkhand.

¶6

2.The Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum East.

¶7

3.The Circle Officer, Town Jamshedpur, Dist-East Singhbhum.

¶8

…… Respondents

¶9

---------

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, A.C to Sr. S.C-II. -----------

¶11

3/Dated: 07^th November, 2019

¶12

The Notice dated 25.07.2019 passed in B.P.L.E Case No.98 of 201920 has been challenged whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to satisfy the authority about alleged encroachment over the land in question which is the subject matter herein.

¶13

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the land is not in the nature of public land and as such the provision of Public Land Encroachment Act as applicable in the State of Jharkhand, is not attracted, therefore, the impugned notice is without jurisdiction.

¶14

The further point has been agitated in questioning the said notice that the petitioner is in possession of the land since last 64 years as per the entry made in the khatian and the petitioner by virtue of his possession over the land, the nature of adverse possession cannot be effected on the garb of removal.

¶15

Learned A.C to Sr. S.C-III appearing for the State of Jharkhand has submitted that since the petitioner is raising factual aspects and has already approached before the authority in terms of the notice, therefore, since notice is within jurisdiction by which the petitioner has been called upon to satisfy the authority about alleged encroachment, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to approach before the authority concerned for adjudication of the issue.

¶16

This Court after having heard learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the rival submissions, is of the view that the notice if assailed before the Court having power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can be looked into and quashed if it is without

¶17

jurisdiction but when the notice has been issued for adjudication of some factual aspect, the same is required to be adjudicated by the authority who have issued the notice and at this stage the notice if quashed by the Writ Court sitting under Article 226, the fact would not be adjudicated.

¶18

This Court on the basis of the aforesaid principle, is of the view that since petitioner has already approached before the authority concerned along with the relevant documents, deem it fit and proper not to interfere with the impugned notice and in view thereof liberty is upon the petitioner to pursue the proceeding and if required he will be at liberty to make addition in the reply by taking other relevant facts supported by relevant documents, if any.

¶19

The concerned authority shall decide and adjudicate the issue within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶20

Future action would depend upon the consequence of the decision taken by authority as directed hereinabove.

¶21

The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of.

¶22

Saket/-

Suyogya Topno v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suyogya Topno v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Jyanti Munda Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief Secretary And Ors.

Famica Press Industries P Limited through Jairam Prasad Singh Vs Bank of India through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Indrajeet Singh Saluja Vs Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority through Its Managing Director

Jivani Devi Vs State of Jharkhand

Akhileshwar Narayan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhagwan Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand