Disposed

Gopal Prasad Gupta v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Jharkhand HC14 Mar 2023WPC/1700/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking directions for rehabilitation of hutment dwellers. The court granted liberty to unrcommended petitioners to approach the Deputy Commissioner for verification of survey records and related decisions.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners nos. 2 and 3 to represent before the Deputy Commissioner to verify inclusion in the survey list and seek appropriate decision.

Gopal Prasad Gupta Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (C) No.1700 of 2020

¶3

¶4

Gopal Prasad Gupta

¶5

Arjun Acharya

¶6

Sumitra Sohish

¶7

Ashok Saw .......... Petitioners.

¶8

-Versus-

¶9

The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶10

Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad.

¶11

Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad.

¶12

Managing Director, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad.

¶13

General Manager, Eastern Zone Area of Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Bhoura, Dhanbad.

¶14

Jharia Rehabilitation Development Authority, Hirapur, Dhanbad through its Vice Chairman.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶18

----For the Petitioners : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate For the State : Mr. Amit Mishra, A.C. to Sr. S.C.II For Res. No.3 to 5 : Ms. Aditee Dongrawat, A.C. to Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate -----

¶19

Order No.06 Date: 14.03.2023

¶20

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondents to rehabilitate the petitioners and other hutment dwellers proposed to be displaced from the locations i.e. Sudamdih Main Colony, Mundapahari, Chief House and Masjid Patti at suitable place by providing civic amenities including drainage system, street lights, water pipe lines, hospital, electricity connection, road communication, common toilets, school buildings and community centre within specified period.

¶21

Reference may be made to the order dated 5^th January, 2021,

¶22

which reads as under:-

¶23

“This case is taken up through video conferencing.

¶24

It has been stated in paragraph no.8 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos.3 to 5 that the petitioners do not have right, title and interest over the land in question. The site comes under the master plan of Jharia Rehabilitation and Development Authority, Dhanbad (in short ‘JRDA’) and the same falls under nonBCCL encroacher’s category as per JRDA master plan. Thus, for rehabilitation of the encroachers, JRDA is solely responsible. Further,

¶25

-2-

¶26

JRDA has rehabilitation policy and scheme for the encroachers and as per the said policy and scheme, the encroachers are being rehabilitated in a township, namely, Belgaria with all basic amenities.

¶27

Considering the said stand taken in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos.3 to 5, let Jharia Rehabilitation and Development Authority, Hatia More, Golf Ground Road, Hirapur, Dhanbad-826001 be impleaded as respondent no.6. Necessary insertion in the cause title of the writ petition be made within a period of one week.

¶28

Issue notice to the newly added respondent no.6- Jharia Rehabilitation and Development Authority under registered cover with A/D for which requisites etc. must be filed within a period of one week. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, let a personal notice be also served upon the respondent no.6. An affidavit to that effect must be filed by the petitioner before the next date. Put up this case under the heading “For Admission” after six

¶29

weeks.”

¶30

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.6, stating inter alia that role of the said respondent is to allot houses for rehabilitation of those displaced persons whose names figure in survey list or in the list made available to it by the respondent nos.3 to 5. Since the names of the petitioner nos.1 and 4 were provided by the respondent nos.3 to 5 to the respondent no.6, they have been allotted residential houses i.e. House nos.1962 and 425 (Phase III), Belgoria Township, Mouja Belgoria, Dhanbad with all facilities vide allotment order no.3118 dated 8^th December, 2020 and allotment order no.2145 dated 27^th August, 2020, respectively. So far as the petitioner nos.2 and 3 are concerned, their names were neither included in the survey list made available to the respondent no.6 nor were recommended by the respondent nos.3 to 5 like the cases of the petitioner nos.1 and 4.

¶31

It is, thus, evident from the stand taken in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.6 that the names of the petitioner nos.2 and 3 have not been recommended by the respondent nos.3 to 5 to the respondent no.6, as they were not included in the survey list. Under the said circumstance, no writ of mandamus can be issued to the concerned respondents so far as the petitioner nos.2 and 3 are concerned.

¶32

-3-

¶33

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since survey list of the displaced persons has not been brought on record by the respondents, it is not clear as to for what reason the names of the petitioner nos.2 and 3 were not included in the survey list. Hence, the petitioner nos.2 and 3 may be given liberty to represent before the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad- respondent no.2, who is Chairman of Jharia Rehabilitation Development Authority, Dhanbad.

¶34

Considering the said submission, the petitioner nos.2 and 3 are given liberty to represent the respondent no.2 in this regard. On receipt of the said representation, the said respondent after verifying relevant records including survey list shall take an appropriate decision within eight weeks from the date of filing of the representation. The respondent no.2 while taking the decision may call for required information from the respondent no.3.

¶35

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid liberty and direction.

¶36

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶37

Sanjay/

Gopal Prasad Gupta v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Prasad Gupta 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ankit Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Neha Kumari Vs State of Jharkhand

Lakhiram Tudu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nibha Bara Vs Central Board of Secondary Education through Regional Officer

R S Construction through One of Its Partner Sri Rajiv Kumar Vs the Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited through Its Managing Director

Rajeev Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Rural Development Panchayati Raj