The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No.282 of 2022 ---- 1. Seema Jain 2. Premsons Motors Udyog Pvt. Ltd. Through its Director, Punit Kumar Poddar …. …. Petitioners Versus 1. Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi through its Municipal Commissioner, 2. The Assistant Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Kutchery Chowk, Ranchi …. …. Respondents
Legal Reasoning
---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Petitioners For the Respondents 10/Dated: 23rd April, 2024 : Mr. Rohitashya Roy @ Rohit Roy, Adv. : Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, Adv. ---- 1. 2. Heard the parties. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 22.12.2021 passed in Misc. Appeal No.19/2021 (Annexure-8) passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Ranchi Regional Development Authority, Ranchi (RRDA) affirming the order dated 02.08.2021 passed by the Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi (RMC) in U.C. Case No.224/2021 wherein the petitioners were directed to remove the structure under Sections 436 and 437 of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011. 3. Factual matrix of the land is as follows: The land alongwith structure comprised in Khata No.194, R.S. Plot No.590/Part situated at Village Ranchi, Purani Ranchi, Harmu Road, P.S. Kotwali, Ranchi measuring an area of 4 kathas was acquired by the Ram Iqbal Singh by virtue of sada hukumnama in the year 1955 from the recorded tenant and after acquiring the same, construction has been done over the said piece of land. Ram Iqbal Singh has died leaving behind Smt. Kalawati Devi w/o of Sri Vijay Kumar Singh as his legal heir. The petitioner No.1 has claimed that she has purchased the said land from the said Kalawati Devi by registered sale deed being Sale Deed No.5295/4183 of 2014 dated 22.07.2014. On the strength of said registered sale deed, petitioner No.1 came in possession over the said land alongwith the structure standing therein. The holding tax has been assessed in the year 2019 in the name of petitioner No.1. It further appears that petitioner No.1 has leased out the premises alongwith the structure to the petitioner No.2 in March, 2020 and since then the petitioner No.2 was running a second hand car dealership in the name and style of ‘Maruti Suzuki True Value Premsons”. It has been further claimed that similarly land alongwith structure situated in Khata No.194, R.S. Plot No.590/Part situated at Village Ranchi, Purani Ranchi, Harmu Road, P.S. Kotwali, Ranchi measuring an area of 4.5 kathas was acquired by one Suraj Singh by virtue of sada hukumnama. This statement has been made in paragraph-9 of the present writ petition. Thereafter this statement has been made in pararaph-10 that the aforesaid land with structure was purchased in the year 1955 and after purchasing, Suraj Singh has made developments and constructed a house over the same piece of land. Thus, as per averment, the land in question has been settled by sada hukumnama and also purchased but no description of purchase has been shown. Further statement has been made that the said Suraj Singh has died leaving behind his son Balram Singh who become the karta of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) belonging to Late Suraj Singh. The third piece of land situated in Khata No.194, R.S. Plot No.590/Part situated at Village Ranchi, Purani Ranchi, Harmu Road, P.S. Kotwali, Ranchi measuring an area of 3.5 kathas was acquired by one Prasidh Narayan Singh by virtue of sada hukumnama. Apart from settlement through the sada hukumnama, the land has been again purchased in the year 1955 by the said Prasidh Narayan Singh and thereafter a house has been constructed over the said piece of land. The said Prasidh Narayan Singh died leaving behind his son Tej Bahardur Singh as his legal heir. From the Tej Bahadur Singh, 2 W.P. (C) No.282 of 2022 petitioner No.1 has again purchased through the same sale deed being Deed No.5295/4183 of 2014 dated 22.07.2014. 4. It has been further claimed that a proceeding has been initiated under Section 71A of the C.N.T. Act, 1908 registered as SAR Case No.210 of 2009- 10. The SAR Court has passed an order for payment of compensation in favour of heirs of the recorded tenant vide order dated 11.10.2010. 5. It further appears that an inspection has been made by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation and found that some structure has been made over impugned piece of land without authorisation. The area falls in a restricted area as it is a bank of the Harmu River. 6. It further appears that on the general direction issued by this Court regarding the illegal construction made around the Harmu River, an inspection has been made and it has been found by the municipal authority that an unauthorised structure has been erected on the impugned piece of land. Accordingly a proceeding has been initiated which has been numbered as U.C. Case No.224 of 2021 and an adverse order has been passed against the petitioner No.1 on the ground that the structure has been erected within 15 meters of the Harmu river which is unauthorised. 7. Now the issue has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have an absolute right to erect a structure whatever they likes and no restriction can be imposed by any authority and for this purpose he has relied upon the judgment reported in (2005) 11 SCC 222 in the case of Raju S. Jethmalani & Ors. Vrs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. It has been submitted that it was an old structure and only internal modification has been made. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the record, it appears that the ownership and the possession over the said piece of land is not an issue before me. The only issue is the structure which is within 15 meters of the Harmu River. Judgment reported in (2005) 11 SCC 222 in the case of Raju S. Jethmalani & Ors. Vrs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. The restriction imposed without compensation has been struck down. 3 W.P. (C) No.282 of 2022 09. In the present case, the existence and Right of Harmu River is involved. The Right of present and future generation has to be considered. Harmu River is life-line of Ranchi. Further, restriction has been imposed as per Municipal law and the said law is not under challenge. 10. In a properly conducted proceeding finding of fact has been recorded that new construction has been made without authorisation and in violation of law and this has been recorded on the basis of material available on record. An inspection has been made and that has been considered. 11. The impugned structure is within 15 meters of the Harmu River and this is contrary to municipal law. 12. In view of above discussion and finding recorded by the Court, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. Accordingly, the same is, hereby, dismissed. Shahid/- Uploaded (Rajesh Kumar, J.) 4 W.P. (C) No.282 of 2022