Disposed

Smt. Usha Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Jul 2026WPC/5027/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against notices directing the petitioners to appear in alleged land-encroachment proceedings. The Court held no action could be taken before hearing and a final order under Section 3, and directed the Circle Officer to conclude the proceeding after evidence and hearing, or transfer it to the Collector if not vested with that power.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners to be heard; proceeding to be concluded after taking evidence and passing final order under Section 3; Circle Officer to transfer case to Collector if not vested with Collector's powers.

Smt. Usha Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

2026:JHHC:21161

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5027 of 2026

¶3

Smt. Usha Devi, Wife of Late Dilip Prasad, aged about.54 Years, Resident of Kumhar Toli, P.O. & P.S. Ward No.14, Chaibasa, District-West Singhbhum. 2. Smt. Ram Rati Prajapati, Wife of Sri Daya Nidhi Prajapati, aged about. 49 Years, Resident of Kumhar Toli, Ward No.14, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, DistrictWest Singhbhum. .... Petitioner(s).

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand;

¶6

The Deputy Commissioner, having its office at West Singhbhum, P.O. & P.S.-Chaibasa, Dist. West Singhbhum.

¶7

The Additional Commissioner, having its office at West Singhbhum, P.O. & P.S.-Chaibasa, Dist. West Singhbhum

¶8

The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, having its office at West Singhbhum,& P.S. Chaibasa, Dist.- West P.O. Singhbhum.

¶9

The Circle Officer, Sadar having its office at West Singhbhum, P.O. & P.S.Chaibasa, Dist. West Singhbhum … Respondents.

¶10

------CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶11

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Gautam, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Kunal Chandra Suman, AC to GP-II

¶12

------

¶13

02/ 17.07.2026 : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶14

The petitioners are aggrieved with the notices dated 07.04.2026 and 02.06.2026 (Annexure 9 and 9/1), whereby the petitioners have been directed to appear with all the necessary documents as the respondent-State is of the opinion that the land where the petitioners are residing has been encroached by the petitioners.

¶15

I have gone through the notices, where the Circle Officer, Sadar Chaibasa has directed the petitioners to appear before him with all the necessary documents on the date so fixed in the notice.

¶16

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have already gone with all the necessary documents and produced the same before him.

¶17

From the aforesaid notices, it is clear that the notices have been issued under the Jharkhand Public Land Encroachment Act. Section 3 of the Act provides for issuance of notice to the proposed encroacher. Though, no

¶18

provision of the Act is mentioned in the notices but from the contents thereof it can be presumed that the same has been issued under Section 3 of the aforesaid Act. Once the proceeding has been initiated, only after giving an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and after coming to a conclusion that the petitioners are encroacher, then only any action can be taken against the petitioners and not before that. Thus, I direct the respondent No.-5-Circle Officer, Sadar Chaibasa to conclude the proceeding as early as possible after taking evidence and hearing the petitioners and only if it is found that the petitioners are encroacher, they may be proceeded against. In this context, it is necessary to direct that if the Circle Officer is vested with the power of a “Collector” under the Jharkhand Public Land Encroachment Act, then only he can proceed or else he will transfer the case to the “Collector” under the Act, who will initiate a fresh proceeding under the Jharkhand Public Land Encroachment Act.

¶19

It is made clear that without passing the final order under Section 3 of the Jharkhand Public Land Encroachment Act, the encroachment cannot be removed.

¶20

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶21

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶22

17^th July, 2026 Madhav/Uploaded on:20/07/2026

¶23

-2-

Smt. Usha Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Usha Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Indian Bank (Allahabad)Sam Brach through Its Authorized Officer, Rahul Jaiswal Vs the State of Jharkhand

M/S Heal and Pure Enterprises, through Its Proprietor, Vineet Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand Thro the Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare

Uco Bank, Acting through Its Branch Manager, Richa Vs the State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Jharkhand

Mahabir Prasad Sah Vs Tapan Sah

Mahima Prakash Kerketta Vs State of Jharkhand

Sunil Toppo Vs Sanjay Munda