Disposed¶14

Sunita Sinha v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC20 Jul 2026WPC/5094/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dangerous or depleted tree on public land; pruning, transplantation and felling as last resort; duty of Municipal Corporation/Nagar Nigam and Divisional Forest Officer, Hazaribag; representation inaction; compensation for damage to gate and wall before Deputy Commissioner; W.P. (C) No. 5094 of 2026; neutral citation 2026:JHHC:21366; disposed of; Ananda Sen, J.; decision dated 20.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Municipal Corporation/Nagar Nigam and DFO, Hazaribag) to enquire into the dangerous tree, prune its branches without felling the entire tree if feasible, transplant it if possible, keeping felling as the last resort; petitioner relegated to the Deputy Commissioner for the compensation claim. ¶14

Sunita Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:JHHC:21366

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5094 of 2026

¶3

Sunita Sinha, aged about 50 years, wife ofShaileshKr.Sinha, Resident of Bada Akhara, Nirmal school gali, P.O.&P.S. Hazaribagh, District: Hazaribagh, Jharkhand

¶4

.... Petitioner(s).

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Municipal Corporation / Nagar Nigam through its Commissioner, Hazaribag, PO/PS Hazaribag, Jharkhand 3. Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), Hazaribag, PO/PS Hazaribag, Jharkhand 4. Concerned Ward Officer Ward No. 27 Soni Chhetri Krishna … Respondents.

¶8

------CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. Shreya Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : Ms. Moushami Chatterjee, AC to GA-V

¶9

------

¶10

02/ 20.07.2026 : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶11

It is the grievance of the petitioner that there is a tree in public land adjacent to the house of the petitioner, which is dangerous and in depleted condition, which needs to be removed. A branch of the said tree broke from the trunk and damaged the gate and wall of the house of the petitioner. Due to the damage caused, compensation has been prayed for. It is his grievance that he has filed a representation but the respondents are not taking any action.

¶12

Considering the aforesaid submission of the petitioner, I direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to make an enquiry and if the branches of the tree can be pruned, the same should be done without felling the entire tree. If the tree can be transplanted to some other place, the same should be done. Felling of the entire tree would be the last resort, which the respondent should take.

¶13

So far as compensation is concerned, the petitioner should move before the Deputy Commissioner claiming the same. The Deputy Commissioner will pass an appropriate order considering all aspects.

¶14

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

¶15

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶16

20^th July, 2026 Madhav/Uploaded on:22/07/2026

Sunita Sinha v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Sinha 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arbind Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Diwakar Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sona Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand

Punam Kujur Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Urban Development Department

Neeraj Shroff Vs the State of Jharkhand