Disposed

Meera Sahdeo Wife of Late Kailash Nath Sahdeo v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC21 Mar 2023WPC/6372/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the declaration of private land as public open space without acquisition. The High Court found the initial grievance moot as the land was reclassified to residential in the new master plan. However, the Court noted the unexplained denial of sanction to the building plan and dismissed the petition, reserving liberty to approach the Municipal Corporation for its reasone

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to approach Respondent No. 3 for building plan sanction as per law and masters plan.

Meera Sahdeo Wife of Late Kailash Nath Sahdeo Vs State… — Landlord and Tenant | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 6372 of 2010

¶3

Meera Sahdeo, w/o Late Kailash Nath Sahdeo, resident of New Latma, P.O. Hatia, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi, also residing at Nibaranpur, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Chutia, District Ranchi.

¶4

Hardeep Kumar Yadav, S/o Late Raghunandan Mahto, resident of New Latma, P.O. Hatia, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi

¶5

… … Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Jharkhand, through Secretary, Urban Development Department, Ranchi, office at Project Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

¶8

Ranchi Regional Development Authority, Kutchery Road, P.O. GPO, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi, through its Secretary

¶9

Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Kutchery Road, P.O. GPO, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi, through its Administrator.

¶10

… … Respondents

¶11

¶12

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶13

¶14

For the Petitioners : Mr. Rohit Roy, Advocate Mr. Vibhor Mayank, Advocate For the Resp. No. 1 : Mr. Lal Gyan Ranjan Nath Shahdeo, Advocate For the Resp. No. 3 : Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate ---

¶15

07 /21.03.2023 Heard Mr. Rohit Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners along with Mr. Vibhor Mayank, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

¶16

2. Heard Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 3.

¶17

3. Heard Mr. Lal Gyan Ranjan Nath Shahdeo, learned counsel

¶18

appearing for the respondent no. 1-State of Jharkhand.

¶19

4. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

¶20

“(a) In the nature of mandamus commanding upon the concerned respondent authorities to show cause as to how and under what authority the respondents have declared Lands falling under Village Hetu (New Latma) and Village Hesag (Choriatoli) as “public open space” without acquiring the same on payment of adequate compensation in accordance with law; (b) For a further Writ/Order/Direction commanding upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith de-reserve the lands under Village Hetu (New Latma) and Village Hesag (Choriatoli) which has been notified as “public open space” by

¶21

¶22

the respondents without acquiring the same in accordance with law.”

¶23

5. On 02.01.2023, when this case was taken up, it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the private land of the petitioners has been declared as public open space and the action of the respondents was wholly without jurisdiction. The land was never acquired by the respondent – State and the petitioners were being deprived from enjoying their private property as per their wishes.

¶24

6. The learned counsel for the respondents had submitted that the new master plan has been notified and consequently, he was directed to file specific affidavit on the point as to whether the property involved in the present case continues to be public open space under the new master plan. A counter-affidavit has been filed pursuant to order dated 02.01.2023.

¶25

7. Paragraph 8 and 9 of the said affidavit filed by respondent no. 3 is quoted as under:

¶26

“8. That it is stated and submitted that the land in question of the present writ application being R.S. Plot No. 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106 Thana 298 Mouza Hetu, as per present existing Master Plan 2037 has been earmarked for Airport Development and R.S Plot No. 565 Thana 298 Mouza Hetu earlier as per Revised Master Plan 1983 was falling under Public Open Space now as per present existing master plan 2037, the said land falls under Residential Category.

¶27

9. That it is stated and submitted that the aforesaid land which is earmarked for airport development, the respondent RMC as per prevailing law cannot sanction any building either for residential or commercial on the said land. RMC can sanction a building plan on the land which is earmarked for residential category.”

¶28

8. Upon perusal of the paragraph 8 and 9 quoted above, it is apparent that the property of the petitioners is no longer a ‘public open space’.

¶29

9. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners still continues to be aggrieved by submitting that the petitioners wanted to construct further on their property, but the map was not being sanctioned by stating that the same was reserved as public open space and even after filing of the counter-affidavit, they have stated that the building map cannot be sanctioned.

¶30

10. The learned counsel submits that denial to sanction the building map amounts to depriving the petitioners from utilizing the property

¶31

¶32

as per law. He has relied upon a judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2005) 11 SCC 222 (Raju S. Jethmalani and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others) and has submitted that the respondents cannot deprive the petitioners from using their property. He submits that certainly, it was open to them to acquire the same and then utilize it.

¶33

11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the initial grievance of the petitioners that the private land has been declared as public open space does not survive any longer in view of the supplementary counter-affidavit filed by respondent no. 3. However, the fact remains that as per the supplementary counteraffidavit, it has been mentioned that the building plan of the petitioners cannot be sanctioned. In the writ records, neither the building plan has been annexed, nor has any rejection of the building plan been brought on record.

¶34

12. Even from the supplementary counter-affidavit filed by the respondent no. 3, no rejection order of the building plan has been annexed. Further, no specific provision of master plan or any provision of law has been referred to deny the sanction of the building plan which is said to have been the reason for filing of the present writ petition.

¶35

13. This Court is of the considered view that the sanction or non - sanction of building plan cannot be a subject matter of the present case at this stage. It is certainly for the respondent no. 3 to consider the building plan of the petitioners as per the applicable law including the new master plan which has already come into force.

¶36

14. At this, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that for this, the petitioners will have to submit the building plan for consideration.

¶37

15. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed with a liberty reserved with the petitioners to approach the respondent no. 3 for sanction of building plan in accordance with law. Upon such application, the respondent no. 3 shall pass appropriate reasoned order with regard to the sanction of the building plan in accordance with law by referring to the various provisions of the master plan/circulars etc.

¶38

¶39

as well as the judicial pronouncements, which may be applicable to the petitioners. The order in connection with the sanction of the building plan be passed after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners or their authorized representative. The reasoned order be communicated to the petitioners through speed post at the address to be mentioned in the application for grant of sanction.

¶40

16. The respondent no. 3 shall make all endeavor to expeditiously dispose of the proposal for sanction of building plan, but certainly in accordance with law and also in the light of the aforesaid observations and direction.

¶41

17. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

¶42

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶43

Pankaj

Meera Sahdeo Wife of Late Kailash Nath Sahdeo v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meera Sahdeo Wife of Late Kailash Nath Sahdeo v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

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

M/S.Steel Authority of India L Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Ranjan Kumar Singh Vs the Central University of Jharkhand through the Vice Chancellor and Ors.

Project Officer,Bachra Project Vs Union of India And Ors.

Bijoy Kumar Kedia And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Smt.Kiran Shally And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Uday Kumar Singh And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.