Allowed

Karmu Ram Nayak v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Jharkhand HC3 Feb 2021WPC/218/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging notices issued to vacate alleged encroached public land within 24 hours under Section 3 of the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956. The Court held that failure to follow prescribed statutory procedure rendered such immediate direction impermissible.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notices under Section 3 of the 1956 Act were quashed; petitioners directed to appear by 25.02.2021 and file reply; no coercive action permitted pending final decision under Section 6.

Karmu Ram Nayak Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its… — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (C) No.218 of 2021

¶3

¶4

Karmu Ram Nayak

¶5

Mo. Bigan Devi

¶6

Chanchali Nayak

¶7

Sumita Devi

¶8

Dukhranjan Nayak

¶9

Rina Devi

¶10

Gallu Ram Nayak

¶11

Babulal Nayak 9. Chhutuva Nayak .......... Petitioners. -Versus-

¶12

The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi.

¶13

Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh. 3. Circle Officer, Gola, District Ramgarh.

¶14

.......... Respondents.

¶15

----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶16

----For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate For the State : Mr. Barun Prabhakar, A.C. to G.P.III ----- Order No.03 Date: 03.02.2021

¶17

This case is taken up through video conferencing.

¶18

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the notices (Annexure-4 series to the writ petition) issued under Section 3 of the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Public Land Encroachment, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act, 1956’) by the Circle Officer, Gola- respondent no.3, whereby the petitioners have been directed to vacate their respective residential premises within 24 hours.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the petitioners are in lawful possession of their respective land and have been residing over the same by constructing houses. Earlier also, a land encroachment proceeding was initiated by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Hazaribagh against Budhu Ghasi-common ancestor of the petitioners, vide L.E. Case no.110 of 1965-66, in which the respondent no.3 vide order dated 3^rd September, 1965 was directed to make spot inspection and to see whether the said land could be settled to him without causing loss to the Government, as would be evident from Annexure-3 to the writ petition, however, no action was taken thereafter and since then the petitioners/their ancestors have been peacefully residing over the said land. To the utter surprise of the petitioners, they received the impugned notices issued by the respondent no.3 under Section 3 of the Act, 1956, straightway

¶20

-2-

¶21

directing them to vacate their respective land within 24 hours failing which the structures made over the same would be removed and cost of such removal would be realized from them.

¶22

The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that without following the procedure as prescribed under the Act, 1956, the petitioners cannot be forced to vacate their respective land.

¶23

Mr. Barun Prabhakar, learned A.C. to G.P.III, submits that since the land occupied by the petitioners is public land, they have rightly been directed to vacate the same vide impugned notices issued by the respondent no.3.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the contents of the writ petition.

¶25

A detailed procedure has been prescribed under Act, 1956 empowering the Collector under the said Act (respondent no.3 herein) to take steps for removal of encroachment from the public land. As per Section 3 of the Act, 1956, if it appears to the Collector from an application made by any person or upon information received from any sources that any person has made or is responsible for continuance of any encroachment upon any public land, the Collector may cause to be served upon such person a notice in the prescribed form requiring him to appear on a date which shall not be less than two weeks from the date of service of notice.

¶26

Section 4 of the Act, 1956 provides that the person to whom notice under Section 3 has been served or any person concerned with the alleged encroachment made over the public land has the right to appear before the Collector and to put forth his case in defence.

¶27

Section 5 of the Act, 1956 provides that the Collector shall provide opportunity of hearing to the applicant or the person to whom the notice has been served or any other person who may be interested either in the encroachment or in the removal thereof and the said authority may take such other evidence as may be adduced in that behalf. As per the proviso to Section 5, if the person on whom notice has been served under Section 3 or any other person concerned in relation to the encroachment case fails to appear and to file show cause reply on the date specified in the said notice or any other date to which hearing is adjourned, he may proceed to hear the matter exparte.

¶28

-3-

¶29

Section 6 of the Act, 1956 empowers the Collector to pass final order after providing due opportunity of hearing to the concerned person.

¶30

On perusal of the contents of the writ petition it appears that the respondent no.3 by reasons of the impugned notices issued under Section 3 of the Act, 1956 has straightway directed the petitioners to remove the alleged encroachment from the land in question, which is not permissible under law. The respondent no.3 is under statutory obligation to follow the procedure prescribed under the Act, 1956 as detailed herein above.

¶31

Hence, the petitioners are directed to appear before the respondent no.3 in the concerned land encroachment cases by 25^th February, 2021 and to file respective show cause reply in their defence. On filing of the such reply, the respondent no.3 after due consideration of the same and on making enquiry, if so required, shall take appropriate informed decision, as mandated under Section 6 of the Act, 1956.

¶32

Till the said decision is taken by the respondent no.3, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned notices (Annexure-4 series to the writ petition).

¶33

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶34

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶35

Sanjay/

Karmu Ram Nayak v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karmu Ram Nayak v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

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

Ms N P Construction Throguh Its Proprietor Shri Pramod Singh Vs Steel Authority of India Ltd. through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Ramji Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary Ranchi

Barun Konar Vs Sameena Jahan

Kali Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Ms Kamalalaya Colour Lab Studio through Its Authorised Signatory Cum Manager Sri Subhendu Neogi Vs State Bank of India through Assistant General Manager Stressed Assets Management Branch

Gautam Kumar Nag Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner