Disposed

Paramjeet Singh v. The State Of Jharkhand Through The Deputy Commissioner And Anr.

Jharkhand HC4 Jan 2024WPC/6199/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought protection of his remaining 534.60 sq. ft. shop premises from demolition without proceedings under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956. Respondents stated the area was not encroached. The Court disposed of the writ petition directing that any demolition be done only after due process of law.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed not to demolish the petitioner's 534.60 sq. ft. shop premises; any demolition only after due process of law.

Paramjeet Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The… — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(C) No.6199 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.6199 of 2017

¶3

------

¶4

Paramjeet Singh, son of Late Chanan Singh, resident of E/124, A Block, Sonari East Layout, P.O. and P.S. Sonari, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, PIN 831001. … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand, Through the Deputy Commissioner, East Singbhum, P.O. and P.S. Sakchi, Jamshedpur District East Singbhum. 2. Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee, through its Special Officer, having its office at Sakchi, Jamshedpur, P.O. and P.S. Sakchi, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum (Jharkhand).

¶7

… Respondent

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Jai Prakash, AAG Mr. Amitesh Kr. Geasen, AC to AAG ------

¶9

P R E S E N T

¶10

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶11

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶12

This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶13

India inter alia with a prayer for directing the respondents not to demolish the remaining portion of the shop premises of the petitioner admeasuring an area of 534.60 sq. ft. being part of Holding No.1, Mills and Godown Area, Sakchi, Jamshedpur without initiating any proceeding under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956.

¶14

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the portion of the area which has already been demolished, was an encroached land but the area admeasuring 534.60 sq. ft. is not the encroached area, hence, the respondents have no intention of demolishing the same at any future point of time.

¶15

¶16

W.P.(C) No.6199 of 2017

¶17

Considering the aforesaid submissions made by the respondents, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to indulge in any demolition of the said shop premises of the petitioner admeasuring an area of 534.60 sq. ft. as already mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs of this order and if any necessity for demolition of the same arises, the same can only be done after resorting to the due process of law.

¶18

This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid direction.

¶19

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶20

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 04^th of January, 2024 AFR/ Animesh

¶21

Paramjeet Singh v. The State Of Jharkhand Through The Deputy Commissioner And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paramjeet Singh v. The State Of Jharkhand Through The Deputy Commissioner And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Marianus Kachhap Vs State of Jharkhand

Kranti Devi Vs State of Jharkhand

Dr.Shri Niwash Rai Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Surendra Kumar Bhushan Vs Employers in Rel.to Management of Bank of India

Tata Motors Limited through Its General Manager Legal Services Sri Rajesh Kumar Das Vs D K Singh

Laxmi Narayan Kejriwal And Ors. Vs Land Reforms And Revenue Department