Dismissed¶¶34

Sunil Kumar v. Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Jharkhand HC15 Feb 2024WPC/3632/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Demolition of alleged encroachment on acquired Kanke dam land, Ranchi; notice dated 27.03.2017 and removal under Sections 3, 2(2), 6(2) Jharkhand Public Land Encrochantment Act 1956 (as printed: Jharkhand Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956); Encroachment Case No.01 of 2016-17; demolition without notice; principle of natural justice; disputed questions of fact in writ jurisdiction; failure to prove ownership/title documents; compensation not claimed or quantified; Article 226 Constitution of India; related W.P. (C) No. 2668 of 2016; S.A.R. Case No. 102 of 2012-13.

What did the court decide?

No specific amount of compensation was claimed in the writ petition and there was no material in the record to quantify any compensation, if any, payable to the petitioner. ¶¶30

Sunil Kumar Vs Land Reforms And Revenue Department — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the demolition of the petitioner's house/structure without service of any notice was illegal, arbitrary, unsustainable in law and violative of the principle of natural justice, entitling the petitioner to restraint of acquisition and payment of compensation.

¶¶25

Court's answer

No specific amount of compensation was claimed in the writ petition and there was no material in the record to quantify any compensation, if any, payable to the petitioner.

¶¶30

Ratio / Principle

There was absolutely no material to show what sort of structure the petitioner had made; the petitioner produced no document even to prima facie show ownership of the land, his claim was stoutly denied by the State, and therefore highly disputed questions of fact were involved, unsuitable for adjudication in this writ petition.

¶¶30

Key takeaways

This was not a fit case where any relief could be given to the petitioner, and the writ petition, being without merit, was dismissed.ratio¶¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Article 226) dismissed by the High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.). The petitioner, claiming ownership (with his wife and brother) of plot nos. 558, 559, 560 under khata no.34, Mauza Kathar Gonda, Ranchi, allegedly acquired under S.A.R. Case No. 102 of 2012-13, challenged the demolition on 08.04.2017 of his structure during removal of encroachments on acquired Kanke dam land, effected in pursuance of an order of the Circle Officer in Encroachment Case No.01 of 2016-17 under Sections 3, 2(2) and 6(2) of the Jharkhand Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, following a notice dated 27.03.2017 issued in the light of W.P. (C) No. 2668 of 2016. Alleging demolition without notice in violation of natural justice, he sought restraint of acquisition and compensation. HELD: there was no material to show what structure the petitioner had made; no specific compensation was claimed or capable of quantification; the petitioner produced no document to prima facie establish ownership; the claim was stoutly denied by the State, raising highly disputed questions of fact; hence not a fit case for relief and the writ petition was dismissed as without merit.

¶1

1 W.P. (C) No.3632 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 3632 of 2017

¶3

Sunil Kumar, s/o late Ram Bilas Jha, r/o Kathargonda, P.O. – Ranchi University, P.S.-Gonda, Dist.- Ranchi-834008

¶4

.... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reform, Govt. of Jharkhand, Secretariat, P.O.+P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi-834004

¶7

The Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Kachahri Chowk, P.O.-GPO,P.S.- Kotwali, Dist.- Ranchi-834001

¶8

The Deputy Commissioner, Combined Building Block-A, Kachahri Chowk, P.O.-GPO,P.S.- Kotwali, Dist.- Ranchi-834001

¶9

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Combined Building Block-B, Kachahri Chowk, P.O.-GPO,P.S.- Kotwali, Dist.- Ranchi-834001

¶10

The Circle Officer, (Town-Hehal Circle), Combined Building Block-B, Kachahri Chowk, P.O.-GPO,P.S.- Kotwali, Dist.Ranchi-834001

¶11

Respondents

¶12

P R E S E N T

¶13

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶14

….. For the Petitioner : Mr. Kuldeep Kr. Mahto, Advocate : Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advocate : Mr. Pankaj Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rahul Kr. Singh, AC to SC I : Mr. K.K. Bhatt, AC to SC I : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tiwari, SC I …..

¶15

By the Court:-

¶16

Heard the parties.

¶17

This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for directing the respondents

¶18

¶19

W.P. (C) No.3632 of 2017

¶20

to immediately stop acquiring the land of the petitioner which is the subject matter of W.P. (C) No. 2668 of 2016 and to direct the respondents to pay appropriate compensation and other reliefs.

¶21

The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner, his wife and brother are owners of the land bearing plot no. 558, 559, 560 under khata no.34 of total area 10 khatha 8 Chatak under MauzaKathar Gonda, P.S. – Gonda, District- Ranchi. They acquired the said land by paying compensation to Jhape Munda under S.A.R. Case No. 102 of 2012-13 and consequent upon that, the petitioner renovated the house and living peacefully thereon. On 27.03.2017, a notice was issued and circulated by the respondent no.5 in the nearby area of the house of the petitioner that in the light of the order passed in W.P. (C) No. 2668 of 2016 of this Court, the persons who have encroached the land of Kanke dam should vacate the encroached land themselves by 05.04.2017 otherwise, the Government will acquire the encroached land by use of force and the cost has to be borne by the encroached person. The land of the petitioner was not on the encroached land nor he was a party to W.P. (C) No. 2668 of 2016 but even then on 08.04.2017 the government team under the leadership of the respondent no.4 demolished the encroachment of Kanke dam including that of the petitioner, ignoring the fact that the petitioner showed his papers to the respondent no.4 and by such demolition, the life of the petitioner and his family members has been ruined.

¶22

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that demolition of the house of the petitioner without even being

¶23

¶24

W.P. (C) No.3632 of 2017

¶25

serving any notice is illegal, arbitrary and is not sustainable in law and the same is in violation of the principle of natural justice. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this writ petition be allowed.

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand opposes the prayer as made by the petitioner in this writ petition and submits that acquired land of Kanke dam was measured by anchal amin and the amin of the District Land Acquisition Office, jointly. On measurement of the acquired land of Kanke dam, it was detected 100-150 persons have encroached upon the acquired land of Kanke dam of Mouza-Hesal, Kathargonda, etc. On the basis of the joint report of both the amins, Encroachment Case No.01 of 2016-17 was initiated and the court of Circle Office, Town Circle-cum-Hehal Circle, Ranchi issued show cause notices to the encroachers upon Section 3 of Jharkhand Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 of encroachment upon by the encroachers. It is next submitted that plot no. 559 has been encroached by the encroachers by making permanent structures which is acquired land of the Kanke dam and the land upon which the encroachment has been removed is public land as defined under Section 2 (2) of Jharkhand Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the encroachers neither appeared before the circle officer nor filed any show cause, so, the circle officer passed an order to remove the encroachment from the public land under Section 6 (2) of Jharkhand Public Land

¶27

¶28

W.P. (C) No.3632 of 2017

¶29

Encroachment Act, 1956 and accordingly, notice under Section 6 of the Act was issued to them. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner does not have any chit of paper to show his ownership in respect of even any portion of the land which has been demolished in terms of the order passed by the circle officer in Encroachment Case No. 01 of 201617. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has not produced any document nor made any description of the structure claimed to have been built by him over the land from which encroachment has been removed. Hence, it is submitted that this writ petition being without any merit be dismissed.

¶30

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, this Court finds that there is absolutely no material in the record to suggest as to what sort of structure was ever made by the petitioner, the land in question from which encroachment has been removed. No specific amount of compensation has been claimed in this writ petition. There is no material in the record to quantify the amount of compensation if any to be awarded; to the petitioner. The petitioner has not produced any chit of paper to show his ownership over the land from which the petitioner claims that he has been illegally evicted after demolition of the structure made by him. The claim of the petitioner is stoutly denied by the respondent-State. So there are highly disputed questions of facts involved in this writ petition and the petitioner even does not

¶31

5 W.P. (C) No.3632 of 2017

¶32

come forward with any document to prima facie show his ownership of the concerned land.

¶33

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where any relief is to be given to the petitioner.

¶34

Accordingly, this writ petition being without any merit is dismissed.

¶35

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶36

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 15^th February, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-

Sunil Kumar v. Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar v. Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Steel Authority of India Limit Vs Their Workman Mahadev Mahtha

Ms R S Trading Company Through Its Sole Proprietor Ravi Kr Jaiswal Vs Union Of India Through Secretary Ministry Of Raod Transport and Highways And Ors.

Vikram Singh Alias Sonu Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Ramchandra Sahu And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Deputy Commissioner And Ors.

Jagdish Chandra Das Vs Forest

Girijesh Kumar Nirala And Anr. Vs Health