Marti Haridasi Dey Vs the State of Jharkhand

“(A) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), direction(s) and/or order(s) upon the concerned respondents for quashing up of the order dated 22.04.2023 which was communicated to the present petitioner by way of memo no.612 dated 26.04.2023 which has been served upon the present petitioner by which the proceeding under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act by way of Case No.02 of 2023 has been decided against the present petitioner and the present petitioner has been directed to remove the alleged encroachment within a period of 15 days from the date of the order, (as contained in Annexure-4 of the present writ application).

¶25

2025:JHHC:37142

¶26

(B) For stay on the demolition proceedings in connection with the order dated 22.04.2023 passed in Case No.02/2023 under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment act.

¶27

(C) For any other appropriate relief (s) to which the petitioner may be found entitled in law and equity.”

¶28

3. Vide order dated 27.11.2024, interlocutory application being I.A. No. 9676 of 2024 was allowed. Through the said interlocutory application, the petitioner had prayed for amending the prayer in the writ petition and an additional prayer was made as under:

¶29

“For issuance of appropriate writ(s), direction(s) and/order(s), upon the concerned respondents to make payment to the petitioner as a Compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000 (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) for illegally demolishing petitioner’s structure even after stay order from this Hon’ble Court.”

¶30

4. The writ petition was filed on 08.05.2023 challenging the order dated 22.04.2023 passed in Case No. 2 of 2023 which was communicated to the petitioner vide memo no. 612 dated 26.04.2023 by which the proceeding under Jharkhand Public Land Encroachment Act has been decided against the petitioner and the petitioner has been directed to remove the alleged encroachment within a period of 15 days. The impugned order is contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition. A prayer has also been made for stay of demolition proceeding pursuant to the impugned order.

¶31

5. The records of the case reveal that the petitioner and others had moved this Court earlier in W.P.(C) No. 3378 of 2010 wherein notice issued by the Circle Officer regarding encroachment was under challenge. It was asserted on behalf of the petitioners of the said case that petitioners are having a pucca building over plot no. 525. However, it was asserted on behalf of the State that two plots were involved in the encroachment proceedings, which were plot nos. 524 and 525, and plot no. 524 was a government land upon which the petitioners of the said case were alleged to have encroached and plot no. 525 was not concerned with that case. The said writ petition was disposed of directing the said petitioners to approach the Circle Officer, Jarmundi, Dumka by 07.12.2022 and the Circle Officer was directed to pass a reasoned order after giving an opportunity of hearing. The Deputy

¶32

2

¶33

2025:JHHC:37142

¶34

Commissioner, Dumka was also directed to enquire as to why the encroachment proceedings were pending in the district of Dumka where encroachment has been made and the Deputy Commissioner was also directed to submit a report before the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land reforms, Government of Jharkhand.

¶35

6. Pursuant to the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 3378 of 2010, the petitioner approached the Circle Officer, Jarmundi along with a copy of the said order and asserted that there is no encroachment in connection with plot no. 524 and plot no. 525 and a prayer was also made by the petitioner that her land be demarcated. Pursuant to such representation, the application was numbered as Application No. 2 of 2023.

¶36

7. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that an order dated 22.04.2023 was passed without taking any evidence and the order was in violation of section 6 of Jharkhand Public Land Encroachment Act. He submits that the order has been passed under assumption and presumption and in spite of request, no demarcation on the spot was carried out.

¶37

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that now a fresh proceeding has been initiated under Jharkhand Public Land Encroachment Act numbered as Case No. 13 of 2024. The learned counsel submits that the respondents are bent upon disturbing the petitioner time and again by initiating encroachment proceeding although the petitioner has not encroached any portion of public land and is confined to the property which belongs to the petitioner.

¶38

9. The learned counsel has further referred to interim order passed in the writ petition which is dated 18.07.2023 and has submitted that prior to this date, the respondents were directed to bring the record before this Court as the certified copy of the impugned order was not being provided to the petitioner, but on that day, the respondents prayed for adjournment on the ground that the officers were busy in connection with Shrawani mela. Consequently, the writ petition was posted on 07.08.2023 and a direction was passed that till 07.08.2023, no coercive step be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order dated 22.04.2023. The learned counsel submits that a counter-affidavit sworn on 09.08.2023 was filed on 10.08.2023 wherein no statement was made that

¶39

3

¶40

2025:JHHC:37142

¶41

the petitioner has removed the encroachment or the encroachment has already been removed. However, prior to filing of the counter-affidavit in the writ petition, a contempt petition was filed before this Court on 25.07.2023 alleging violation of the interim order dated 18.07.2023. In the contempt petition, it was asserted that the petitioner had informed the authority on 18.07.2023 regarding the interim order passed in the writ petition vide annexure-2 annexed with the contempt petition, but in spite of that, the opposite party in the contempt petition demolished the structure on 20.07.2023 and violated the interim order granted by this Court.

¶42

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the recording of demolition proceeding has been placed on record along with a certificate under section 65-B of Evidence Act and has submitted that it would demonstrate that the demolition had actually taken place on 20.07.2023 by the respondents and not on any date prior to that.

¶43

11. Learned counsel further submits that the act of the respondents in misleading the court is also apparent from the fact that in the counteraffidavit filed in the writ petition vide affidavit dated 09.08.2023, no such statement regarding removal of encroachment was made. However, in the show-cause filed before this Court in the contempt case vide affidavit on the same date i.e., dated 09.08.2023, a statement has been made that on 15.05.2023 the Circle Officer, Jarmundi received a report from Amin and inspectors of the Anchal that the order dated 22.04.2023 (order impugned in the writ petition) has been complied by the petitioner and the encroachment has been removed by the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that by filing such a show-cause, the opposite party tried to project before this Court that prior to passing of the impugned order, the encroachment was already removed by the petitioner herself. The learned counsel submits that it is completely unexplained as to why this fact was not brought in the writ records, although on the same day the counter-affidavit in the writ petition was filed. He submits that under such circumstances, the plea of the opposite parties that the petitioner had removed the encroachment on 15.05.2023 cannot be accepted. The learned counsel has also submitted that it appears that the enclosure to

¶44

4

¶45

2025:JHHC:37142

¶46

the show-cause (annexure-B and C) in support of such a statement are manipulated/back dated.

¶47

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that violation of interim order passed by this Court itself calls for a contempt proceeding and he has also submitted that in the writ petition, one interlocutory application being I.A. No. 9676 of 2024 has been filed for addition of prayer seeking compensation to the extent of Rs. 3 lakhs. Said interlocutory application seeking amendment of prayer was allowed vide order dated 27.11.2024.

¶48

13. The learned counsel submits that appropriate action be taken in connection with the erring officer who has violated the interim orders passed by this Court which is subject matter in the contempt proceedings and the petitioner be duly compensated for the losses which the petitioner has suffered on account of violation of the interim orders passed by this Court.

¶49

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment reported in (2007) 15 SCC 688 (State of Bihar and others Vs. Rajendra Singh and Another) (paragraphs 6 and 7) to submit that violation of interim order also attracts contempt proceeding.

¶50

15. Learned counsel for the respondents in the writ petition who is also representing the opposite parties in the connected contempt case, has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and has submitted that merely because in the counter-affidavit of writ petition there is no such statement that the petitioner had removed the encroachment much earlier and such statement has been made in the show-cause in the contempt petition filed by an affidavit on the same day, the same cannot be used to draw an inference that the respondents/opposite parties have misled this Court in any manner. He submits that the fact was brought in the contempt proceedings considering the nature of proceedings which alleged that the opposite party had violated the interim order passed by this Court which had no bearing in the writ petition.

¶51

16. Learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that if the petitioner is interested in getting the land demarcated by the Circle Officer in presence of Amin , the respondents have no serious objection.

¶52

5

¶53

2025:JHHC:37142

¶54

He has also submitted that this will also help in judiciously deciding the pending encroachment pending.

¶55

17. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that there have been repeated proceedings/issuance of notice in connection with alleged encroachment by the petitioner with respect to plot no. 524 and the petitioner claims to be owner of plot no. 525 only and has denied encroachment over the government land of plot no. 524.

¶56

18. Consequently, in W.P.(C) No. 3378 of 2010, the petitioner was directed to file a representation and the Circle Officer was directed to consider her grievance and pass an appropriate order after granting an opportunity of hearing.

¶57

19. The representation clearly reveals that the petitioner was also interested in getting the land demarcated to ultimately end all the disputes.

¶58

20. However, the Circle Officer, though instituted a case on the representation numbered as Application No. 2 of 2023, but did not take any step for on-the-spot demarcation and has passed the impugned order dated 22.04.2023.

¶59

21. This Court is of the considered view that when the petitioner was praying for a demarcation on the spot, the Circle Officer ought to have ensured that the demarcation is done on the spot before finally levelling the allegation of encroachment against the petitioner. In such circumstances, the action of the Circle Officer while passing the impugned order dated 22.04.2023 does not satisfy the principles of natural justice and requirements of law. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22.04.2023 cannot be sustained on this score alone.

¶60

22. However, the matter does not end here.

¶61

23. This Court directs the Circle Officer, Jarmundi to ensure demarcation of plot nos. 524 and 525 through a Government Amin on 22^nd December, 2025 at 11:00 a.m. The report of the demarcation be made on the spot and a copy of the same be also handed over to the petitioner on the spot. Pursuant to such report, it will certainly be open to the petitioner to furnish her documents before the Circle Officer in the land encroachment proceeding which has now been initiated against the

¶62

6

¶63

2025:JHHC:37142

¶64

petitioner numbered as 13 of 2024 and thereafter, an appropriate reasoned order be passed in the fresh land encroachment proceeding.

¶65

24. Learned counsel for the petitioner has already stated that the petitioner is only interested in plot no. 525 and not in plot no. 524 and it is the specific case of the petitioner that she has not encroached any portion of plot no. 524.

¶66

25. So far as the pen drive filed by the petitioner in the writ petition is concerned, which according to the petitioner shows that the alleged encroachment was removed by the respondents on 20.07.2023 and not on any date prior to that , this Court is not inclined to take such evidence in writ jurisdiction and further this Court will not be in a position to identify the property which is involved in the present case. In such circumstances, no case for grant of compensation to the petitioner is made out.

¶67

26. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 27. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed.

¶68

28. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merit of the case of respective parties.

¶69

Cont. Case (Civil) No. 573 of 2023

¶70

29. This contempt petition has been filed alleging non-compliance of order dated 18.07.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2575 of 2023 wherein a direction was passed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner till 07.08.2023 pursuant to impugned order dated 22.04.2023.

¶71

30. A show-cause has been filed in this case bringing on record a report dated 15.05.2023 said to have been received by the concerned Circle Officer stating that the alleged encroachment has already been removed in Khata No. 87, plot no. 524. This report is also followed by a memo no. 748 dated 19.05.2023 issued by the Circle Officer with copy forwarded to other authorities for information and necessary action stating that the encroachment in Khata No. 87, plot no. 524 has already been removed. No rejoinder to this show-cause has been filed by the petitioner to allege that the documents annexed along with the showcause at Annexure-B and C are either forged, fabricated or back-dated.

¶72

7

¶73

2025:JHHC:37142

¶74

31. The core argument of the petitioner is that the in the counteraffidavit filed in the writ petition by virtue of affidavit sworn on the same date i.e., on 09.08.2023, the aforesaid fact has not been disclosed, which amounts to suppression of materials.

¶75

32. This Court is of the view that merely because the fact stated in the aforesaid show-cause has not been disclosed in the counter-affidavit filed in the writ petition, the same does not amount to suppression of material fact, inasmuch as, in the writ petition, the order dated 22.04.2023 was under challenge and the contempt case was relating to violation of interim order, therefore, the opposite party in the contempt proceedings brought to the notice of this Court that vide report dated 19.05.2023 and letter dated 15.05.2023, the alleged encroachment was already removed, to bring home the fact that on the day the interim order was passed, the encroachment was removed.

¶76

33. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is not inclined to proceed any further in the contempt proceedings and is of the view that allegations made in the contempt petition is not made out.

¶77

34. Accordingly, Cont. Case (Civil) No. 573 of 2023 is hereby dismissed.

¶78

35. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed.

¶79

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶80

Date of order: 10.12.2025 Date of uploading:18.12.2025 Pankaj

¶81

8

Marti Haridasi Dey v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Marti Haridasi Dey v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishnanand Rai Vs Meena Singh

Sukra Oraon And Ors. Vs Lakhna Oraon And Ors.

Ganesh Sao Vs Murli Rajwar

Marti Haridasi Dey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shiblal Kisku Vs Barki Soren

Abdul Kalam Alias Abul Kalam Vs the State of Jharkhand