Dismissed¶29

Smt Shila Singh v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Urban Development and Housing Department

Jharkhand HC9 Jun 2026WPC/3673/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition dismissed; Jharkhand State Housing Board eviction and encroachment beyond allotted plot area; Plot No.261 Adityapur, Saraikella-Kharsawan; handover of 854.52 sq. ft. excess land; allotment of 5399.48 sq. ft.; Appeal No.01 of 2015 before Joint Secretary-cum-Appellate Authority, Urban Development and Housing Department; Eviction Case No.02 of 2014 (order dated 28.02.2015); earlier writ W.P.(C) No.3973 of 2008 (Coordinate Bench order dated 31.01.2013); Circle Officer measurement; Ananda Sen, J.; decided 09.06.2026; 2026:JHHC:16584.

What did the court decide?

There is no dispute that the petitioner has been allotted 5399.48 sq. ft.; the Coordinate Bench decision in W.P.(C) No.3973 of 2008 had likewise acknowledged this. ¶23

Smt Shila Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Urban Development and Housing Department — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, allotted 5399.48 sq. ft. under Plot No.261, had encroached on Housing Board land beyond that allotment, so that the 854.52 sq. ft. demanded from her could lawfully be taken back. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

There is no dispute that the petitioner has been allotted 5399.48 sq. ft.; the Coordinate Bench decision in W.P.(C) No.3973 of 2008 had likewise acknowledged this.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

From the measurement reports it is clear that the petitioner is in occupation of more area than what had actually been allotted to her (5399.48 sq. ft.).

¶27

Key takeaways

There is no doubt that the petitioner has encroached the excess area claimed by the respondent Housing Board, i.e. 854.52 sq. ft.ratio¶27
No illegality is found in the impugned order directing the petitioner to vacate the encroached area of 854.52 sq. ft.ratio¶27
The petitioner is directed to vacate the said excess area within four weeks.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

JHARKHAND HIGH COURT (Ranchi) | W.P.(C) No.3673 of 2019 | Decided 09.06.2026 | Ananda Sen, J. Smt. Shila Singh challenged (i) the order dated 18.09.2018/25.09.2018 passed by the Joint Secretary-cum-Appellate Authority, Urban Development and Housing Department, in Appeal No.01 of 2015 (Annexure-12), and (ii) the original order dated 28.02.2015 passed by the Jharkhand State Housing Board, Harmu, Ranchi, in Eviction Case No.02 of 2014 (Annexure-11), both directing her to hand over 854.52 sq. ft. of land. Her counsel asserted she was a lawful allottee abiding a Lease Deed and had encroached nothing, pointing to a Coordinate Bench order dated 31.01.2013 in W.P.(C) No.3973 of 2008 holding that her possession of 5399.48 sq. ft. under Plot No.261, Adityapur, could not be disturbed. The respondents submitted that measurement (undertaken pursuant to an order of this Court, through the Circle Officer) showed occupation beyond the allotted 5399.48 sq. ft. The Court found no dispute over the 5399.48 sq. ft. allotment, concluded from the reports that the petitioner occupied area beyond it, held the 854.52 sq. ft. claimed by the Housing Board to be encroachment, found no illegality in the impugned order, dismissed the writ petition, directed vacation of the excess area within four weeks, and clarified that the respondents shall not demand vacation of any space within the allotted 5399.48 sq. ft.

¶1

2026:JHHC:16584

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.3673 of 2019

¶3

Smt. Shila Singh, wife of Sri Sitaram Singh, resident of Plot No.261 (Part), Adityapur, P.O. and P.S. Adityapur, District SaraikellaKharsawan. … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

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

¶6

The Executive Engineer, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Jamshedpur Division, Jamshedpur, P.O. and P.S. Adityapur, District Saraikella-Kharsawan.

¶7

… … Respondents

¶8

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶9

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yadunandan Mishra, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate

¶10

For the Respondent(s) : Mrs. Shalini Shahdeo, AC to SC (L&C)-I (For State)

¶11

Mr. Gaurav Raj, Advocate (For JSHB)

¶12

Ms. Shambhavi Sinha, Advocate

¶13

19/ 09.06.2026

¶14

Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and

¶15

learned counsel representing the respondents.

¶16

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.09.2018 / 25.09.2018 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition), passed by the Joint Secretary-cum-Appellate Authority, Urban Development and Housing Department in Appeal No.01 of 2015, whereby and whereunder he had directed the petitioner to handover 854.52 sq. ft. of land to the Housing Board.

¶17

2.1. Further prayer has been made to quash the order dated 28.02.2015 (original order) (Annexure-11 to the writ petition), passed by the Jharkhand State Housing Board, Harmu, Ranchi, in Eviction Case No.02 of 2014, whereby the petitioner was directed to handover the possession of 854.52 sq. ft. of land.

¶18

3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits

¶19

¶20

2026:JHHC:16584

¶21

that the petitioner has not encroached any land belonging to the Housing Board, rather she was an Allottee of the land in question. He submits that there was a Lease Deed executed between the petitioner and the Housing Board and the petitioner is strictly abiding the said Lease Deed and has not encroached any portion. He submits that vide order dated 31.01.2013 passed in W.P.(C) No.3973 of 2008 (Shila Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.), it has been categorically held by a Coordinate Bench of this Court that the petitioner's possession over the area in question i.e. 5399.48 sq. ft., under Plot No.261, cannot be disturbed, thus the respondents could not have directed the petitioner to hand over 854.52 sq. ft. to the Housing Board, by removing the structure. 4. Learned counsel representing the respondent - Jharkhand State Housing Board (JSHB), submits that there is no dispute that the petitioner has been allotted an area of 5399.48 sq. ft., but it has come to the notice that the petitioner is occupying and utilizing more area than 5399.48 sq. ft., thus the respondents have directed to handover the excess area which the petitioner is occupying beyond 5399.48 sq. ft.

¶22

5. Learned counsel representing the respondent - State submits that by the order of this Court, the Circle Officer was directed to measure the area occupied by the petitioner and on measurement it was found that the petitioner was occupying more area than what had been allotted to her i.e. more than 5399.48 sq. ft.

¶23

6. After hearing the parties, I find that there is no dispute that the petitioner has been allotted 5399.48 sq. ft. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the earlier writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) No.3973 of 2008, had also acknowledged the same. Further, the Housing Board is also accepting that the petitioner is a legal occupant of area of 5399.48 sq. ft., which had been allotted to the petitioner, but the fact remains that both the Housing Board and the State after measuring the area occupied by the petitioner, found that the petitioner is occupying more area beyond the aforesaid 5399.48 sq. ft. Thus, it is clear that the area which the petitioner has occupied

¶24

¶25

2026:JHHC:16584

¶26

beyond 5399.48 sq. ft., is an encroachment. The respondents have only directed the petitioner to handover the aforesaid encroached area to the Housing Board.

¶27

6.1. Since, from the reports itself it is clear that the petitioner is in occupation of more area than what had actually been allotted to her, there is no doubt that the petitioner has encroached excess area which the respondent - Housing Board is claiming i.e. 854.52 sq. ft. Thus, I find no illegality in the impugned order directing the petitioner to vacate the encroached area i.e. 854.52 sq. ft. The petitioner should vacate the said excess area, within four weeks, from today itself.

¶28

6.2. It is made clear that the respondents will not demand vacation of any space which falls within 5399.48 sq. ft. of area allotted to the petitioner.

¶29

7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands dismissed .

¶30

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶31

09th June, 2026 Prashant. Cp-2

¶32

Uploaded on 15.06.2026

¶33

Smt Shila Singh v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Urban Development and Housing Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Shila Singh v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Urban Development and Housing Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju Prasad Shaw Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary, State Information Commission,Jharkhand

Awadhesh Kumar Choudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sinky Kerketta Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Jharkhand

Deepak Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through Jharkhand State Information Commission

Guman Singh Bhumij Vs the State of Jharkhand

National Highway Authority of India through Its Project Director Mr Sudhir Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand