Petitioner challenged notices under Article 226 directed to remove a structure on alleged government land within three days. Court quashed the notices as not in accordance with law, stating the matter could proceed thereafter according to law.
Notices dated 07.06.2006, 13.06.2006 and 20.06.2006 were quashed.
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 matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)
....
W.P. (C) No.3893 of 2006
....
Chiman Lal Sharma .… Petitioner
Versus
PRESENT
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
.... For the Petitioner :Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Adv. For the Respondents :Mr. Nand Kishore Pandey, Adv.
The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsels for the parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the notices dated 07.06.2006, 13.06.2006 and 20.06.2006 (Annexures-2, 4 & 6) whereby the petitioner has been directed to remove the alleged structure, claiming to be situated on the public land, otherwise the same will be forcibly vacated within three days.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is settled principle of law that nobody can be removed from a land without following the procedure established by law.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has filed counter affidavit and submitted that the land in question is a Government Land.
By order dated 04.01.2021, specific question has been asked from the State to the effect that “whether Section 3, 4 & 5 of the Bihar/Jharkhand Public Land Encroachment Act has been followed or not, but till date no reply has been filed.
It appears that the State is claiming that the land in question is a Government Land and petitioner has no right over the said land and as such the possession of the petitioner is illegal.
On the other hand, petitioner has claimed ownership over the said land.
Be as it may be, without going into the merits of the claim, the notices dated 07.06.2006, 13.06.2006 and 20.06.2006 are, hereby, quashed as the same are not in accordance with law.
However, it is observed that parties are at liberty to proceed in the matter in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi The Day of 05th of April, 2021 Shahid/N.A.F.R.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether notices directing removal of structure on alleged public land were in accordance with law.
Whether quashing of notices was warranted without deciding the substantive claim of ownership.
Chiman Lal Sharma
State of Jharkhand
Collector, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur
Circle Officer, Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum
Rajesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
