Disposed

Samir Kumar Ghosh and Ors. v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Jharkhand HC7 Feb 2023WPC/6847/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a notice to seal property. The Court refused to quash the notice but directed the Special Officer to assist petitioners in regularizing deviations, granting them three weeks to apply after hearing all parties.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents not to claim quashing; instead, respondent No. 3 to assist petitioners in regularization process within three weeks.

Samir Kumar Ghosh and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand… — Landlord and Tenant | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (C) No. 6847 of 2013

¶3

1(a) Bharati Dutta age 72 years, D/o Late Sachindra Nath Ghosh, wife of Sukhamoy Dutta, resident of Betwa, 24/S-2, Alok Vihar, Ghorabandha, P.O. Telco, P.S. Govindpur, District East Singhbhum 1(b) Bhaswati Dutta age 65 years D/o Late Sachindra Nath Ghosh, wife of Ajit Kumar Dutta, resident of Block No. 4, Sutlej-F-2, P.O. Luwabasa, P.S. Govindpur, District East Singhbhum

¶4

1(C) Ratan Kumar Ghosh age 70 years

¶5

1(d) Mohan Kumar Ghosh aged about 66 years

¶6

1(e) Atanu Ghosh age 61 years

¶7

No. (c) to (e) are sons of Late Sachindra Nath Ghosh, resident of 68, Pennar Road, Flat No. 4/1, Sakchi, P.O. and P.S. Sakchi, Town, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum

¶8

2(a) Rajib Kumar Ghosh

¶9

2(b) Sanjib Kumar Ghosh,

¶10

Both sons of Late Sunil Kumar Ghosh, resident of 6B, Pennar Road, Sakchi, P.O. and P.S. Sakchi, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum

¶11

2(c) Soma Paul daughter of Late Sunil Kumar Ghosh, wife of Ranabir Paul, resident of k2-32, Road No. 12, Telco Colony, P.O. and P.S. Telco, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum

¶12

Samir Kumar Ghosh son of I.B. Ghosh

¶13

Gautam Kumar Ghosh

¶14

Debasish Ghosh

¶15

Subrato Ghosh

¶16

Subhasish Ghosh

¶17

Supriya Ghosh

¶18

No. 4 to 8 sons of late S.M. Ghosh

¶19

Chaitali Chowdhury wife of Debasish Ghosh

¶20

All residents of H. No. 68, Penar Road, SNP. Area, P.O and PS. Sakchi, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum.

¶21

… … Petitioners Versus

¶22

The State of Jharkhand.

¶23

Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur, Dist. East Singhbhum.

¶24

Special Officer, Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee, Jamshedpur

¶25

Ashish Ghosh son of Sri K.P Ghosh, resident of Bani Villa,

¶26

Post Office Road, Mango, P.O. & PS Mango, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum.

¶27

Kanchan Das son of Sri Manoranjan Das, resident of E/627, Sonari East Layout, P.O. and P.S. Sonari, Town Jamshedpur, Dist. East Singhbhum.

¶28

Alok Ghosh, son of Sri K.P. Ghosh, resident of Bani Villa, Post

¶29

¶30

Office Road, Mango, P.O. & P.S. Mango, Town Jamshedpur,

¶31

District East Singhbhum.

¶32

¶33

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶34

--For the Petitioners : Mr. D.K. Chakraverty, Advocate For the Intervener Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, Advocate For the State : Mr. Deepak Kumar Dubey, Advocate ---

¶35

05 /07.02.2023 Learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the intervener and learned counsel for the State are present.

¶36

2. Nobody appears on behalf of other respondent No. 3 although a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 3. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

¶37

“ That in this application petitioners pray for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction from this Hon'ble Court for quashing the Notice dated 18.10.2013 issued by respondent no.3 whereby and whereunder the respondent no.3 had intimated through the aforesaid notice that the basement and ground floor of the premises of the petitioners is going to seal within a week. AND for issuance of any other writ/order/direction that Your Lordships may deem fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.”

¶38

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset has submitted that I.A. No. 5239 of 2022 as well as I.A. No. 5211 of 2022 were allowed by this court vide order dated 30.01.2023 by which the petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No. 1 have been substituted but he could not carry out necessary amendments in the cause title. He seeks permission to do the same during the course of the day. Permission is accorded.

¶39

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are the owner of the land on which property was constructed by the respondent Nos. 4 to 6. He further submits that nobody has entered appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 in spite of service of notice upon them.

¶40

6. Learned counsel submits that the notice dated 14.03.2011 was issued in the name of original petitioner No. 1 regarding certain

¶41

¶42

deviations and illegal construction over the property. He submits that pursuant to such notice, a letter dated 22.03.2011 was filed before the respondent No. 3 wherein a prayer was made that the petitioner may be allowed to rectify the errors and may also be permitted to regularize the deviations by filing a revised plan as per J.N.A.C. regulation. The petitioners had also expressed that they were ready to deposit to penalty amount in respect of regularization of deviated part of the building from the sanctioned plan. The learned counsel submits that an application for regularization of buildup drawing as per formA with other documents was submitted vide letter dated 03.11.2011 as contained in Annexure-9 and certain fee of Rs. 200 was also deposited on 03.11.2011.

¶43

7. The learned counsel further submits that aforesaid applications which were filed by the petitioners has not been considered by respondent No. 3 but on 18.10.2013, a notice was issued to the petitioners stating that the petitioners have not taken necessary steps for regularization of the building and therefore entire parking area and other portion of the property would be sealed.

¶44

8. The learned counsel submits that in response to the notice dated 18.10.2013 the petitioners filed a reply dated 01.11.2013 and referred to the earlier letter dated 22.03.2011. Learned counsel submits that when the grievance of the petitioners was not taken care of, the petitioners moved this writ petition for the aforesaid relief.

¶45

9. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners had filed application before the respondent No. 3 to enable him to regularize the building by way of revised sanctioned plan or any other mode as may be permissible under the regulations of J.N.A.C. He submits that if there was any further requirement from the side of the petitioners, the respondent No. 3 ought to have intimated the same to the petitioners. He submits that the petitioners are still ready to do the needful as per permissible regulations and therefore appropriate directions may be issued so that the plea of regularization of deviations may be considered in terms of the regulations governing the parties. The learned counsel submits that if there is any rectifiable deviation upon payment of penalty, the petitioners are ready to pay the same and if

¶46

¶47

there is any deviation which is not rectifiable, then under such circumstances the respondent No. 3 may proceed to do the needful.

¶48

10. A counter affidavit has been filed from the side of respondent No. 3 which is on record wherein it has been stated that fees of Rs. 200/- which was deposited by the petitioners was only for purchasing the form and was not the fees for regularization of deviated area and further it has been mentioned that the petitioners did not file the map (the map which intended to get regularize) the self-awarded fees (which was to be collected as per the area of deviation of the premises) was not deposited.

¶49

11. In response to the aforesaid statements made by the respondent No. 3 in the counter affidavit, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at least the respondent No. 3 could have intimated the petitioners regarding any further requirement, the petitioners being a bonafide citizen and the respondent No. 3 being an authority are to proceed as per the law. The learned counsel submits that even from the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 3, no intimation with regard to any further requirement was given to the petitioners. He submits that the petitioners are still ready to do the needful so that the residential complex which has come up pursuant to a sanctioned plan is regularized as per the norms of the respondent No. 3.

¶50

12. After hearing the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties this court finds that notices were issued to the petitioners in connection with deviations from the sanctioned plan with regards to the construction. The petitioners had also approached the respondent No. 3 mentioning that they wish to regularize the building and also pay penalty/fees for regularization of such deviations. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that if the deviation are permissible to be regularized i.e within condonable limits as per the norms of respondent No. 3, then the petitioners are ready to pay the penalty and do the needful. He has also submitted that whatever documentations /payments are required to be done from the side of the petitioners, it will be done at the earliest upon intimation to the petitioners.

¶51

13. This court is of the considered view that the petitioners had already showed their willingness to get deviations in their building

¶52

¶53

regularized upon deposit of penalty/fees by writing two letters dated 22.03.2011 and 01.11.2013, but for one reason or the other the matter regarding regularization of deviations could not be taken to a logical end.

¶54

14. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of enabling the petitioners to approach the respondent No. 3 on 15.03.2023 at 11.00 am along with a detailed representation and a copy of this order and a copy of the writ records. Upon filing of the representation, the respondent No. 3 shall extend all assistance to the petitioners in filing application/documents/fees/penalty etc for regularization of the deviations in building so that the needful be done by the petitioners within a period of 3 weeks from the date of the representation.

¶55

15. Thereafter the respondent No. 3 shall pass a detailed order after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the private respondents as well as any other person/persons who may be found in physical possession of the property involved in this case, in connection with regularization of the building as may be permissible in terms of the regulations of the respondent No. 3. The detailed order be communicated to the parties through speed post at the address to be provided by the concerned persons.

¶56

16. If the deviations are found to be beyond the permissible limit, then the respondent No. 3 shall also communicate the extent of impermissible deviations to the concerned parties so that the petitioners/concerned persons may remove the impermissible deviations within a period of 2 months from the date of such communication failing which it will be open to the respondent no.3 to get the impermissible deviations removed and also to proceed to take all other actions as may be permissible under law.

¶57

17. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶58

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶59

Binit

Samir Kumar Ghosh and Ors. v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samir Kumar Ghosh and Ors. v. the 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

Bedni Mahtain alias Bedani Mahtain Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Rajeshwar Pandey Vs Revenue Department

Smt Semanti Kumari Vs District Administration

Ms Tirupati Metals through Its Propritor Sri Uttam Kumar Singh Vs Forest and Environment

Ajit Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Ratho Karmali Alias Ratho Vishwakarma Vs District Administration