The High Court
Case Details
1 W.P. (C) No.3632 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 3632 of 2017 Sunil Kumar, s/o late Ram Bilas Jha, r/o Kathargonda, P.O. – Ranchi University, P.S.-Gonda, Dist.- Ranchi-834008 .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reform, Govt. of Jharkhand, Secretariat, P.O.+P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi-834004 2. The Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Kachahri Chowk, P.O.-GPO,P.S.- Kotwali, Dist.- Ranchi-834001 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Combined Building Block-A, Kachahri Chowk, P.O.-GPO,P.S.- Kotwali, Dist.- Ranchi-834001 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Combined Building Block-B, Kachahri Chowk, P.O.-GPO,P.S.- Kotwali, Dist.- Ranchi-834001 5. The Circle Officer, (Town-Hehal Circle), Combined Building Block-B, Kachahri Chowk, P.O.-GPO,P.S.- Kotwali, Dist.- Ranchi-834001 …. Respondents P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner For the State : Mr. Kuldeep Kr. Mahto, Advocate : Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advocate : Mr. Pankaj Pandey, Advocate : Mr. Rahul Kr. Singh, AC to SC I : Mr. K.K. Bhatt, AC to SC I : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tiwari, SC I ….. By the Court:- 1. 2. Heard the parties. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for directing the respondents 2 W.P. (C) No.3632 of 2017 to immediately stop acquiring the land of the petitioner which is the subject matter of W.P. (C) No. 2668 of 2016 and to direct the respondents to pay appropriate compensation and other reliefs. 3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner, his wife and brother are owners of the land bearing plot no. 558, 559, 560 under khata no.34 of total area 10 khatha 8 Chatak under Mauza- Kathar Gonda, P.S. – Gonda, District- Ranchi. They acquired the said land by paying compensation to Jhape Munda under S.A.R. Case No. 102 of 2012-13 and consequent upon that, the petitioner renovated the house and living peacefully thereon. On 27.03.2017, a notice was issued and circulated by the respondent no.5 in the nearby area of the house of the petitioner that in the light of the order passed in W.P. (C) No. 2668 of 2016 of this Court, the persons who have encroached the land of Kanke dam should vacate the encroached land themselves by 05.04.2017 otherwise, the Government will acquire the encroached land by use of force and the cost has to be borne by the encroached person. The land of the petitioner was not on the encroached land nor he was a party to W.P. (C) No. 2668 of 2016 but even then on 08.04.2017 the government team under the leadership of the respondent no.4 demolished the encroachment of Kanke dam including that of the petitioner, ignoring the fact that the petitioner showed his papers to the respondent no.4 and by such demolition, the life of the petitioner and his family members has been ruined. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that demolition of the house of the petitioner without even being 3 W.P. (C) No.3632 of 2017 serving any notice is illegal, arbitrary and is not sustainable in law and the same is in violation of the principle of natural justice. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this writ petition be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand opposes the prayer as made by the petitioner in this writ petition and submits that acquired land of Kanke dam was measured by anchal amin and the amin of the District Land Acquisition Office, jointly. On measurement of the acquired land of Kanke dam, it was detected 100-150 persons have encroached upon the acquired land of Kanke dam of Mouza-Hesal, Kathargonda, etc. On the basis of the joint report of both the amins, Encroachment Case No.01 of 2016-17 was initiated and the court of Circle Office, Town Circle-cum-Hehal Circle, Ranchi issued show cause notices to the encroachers upon Section 3 of Jharkhand Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 of encroachment upon by the encroachers. It is next submitted that plot no. 559 has been encroached by the encroachers by making permanent structures which is acquired land of the Kanke dam and the land upon which the encroachment has been removed is public land as defined under Section 2 (2) of Jharkhand Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the encroachers neither appeared before the circle officer nor filed any show cause, so, the circle officer passed an order to remove the encroachment from the public land under Section 6 (2) of Jharkhand Public Land 4 W.P. (C) No.3632 of 2017 Encroachment Act, 1956 and accordingly, notice under Section 6 of the Act was issued to them. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner does not have any chit of paper to show his ownership in respect of even any portion of the land which has been demolished in terms of the order passed by the circle officer in Encroachment Case No. 01 of 2016- 17. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has not produced any document nor made any description of the structure claimed to have been built by him over the land from which encroachment has been removed. Hence, it is submitted that this writ petition being without any merit be dismissed. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, this Court finds that there is absolutely no material in the record to suggest as to what sort of structure was ever made by the petitioner, the land in question from which encroachment has been removed. No specific amount of compensation has been claimed in this writ petition. There is no material in the record to quantify the amount of compensation if any to be awarded; to the petitioner. The petitioner has not produced any chit of paper to show his ownership over the land from which the petitioner claims that he has been illegally evicted after demolition of the structure made by him. The claim of the petitioner is stoutly denied by the respondent-State. So there are highly disputed questions of facts involved in this writ petition and the petitioner even does not 5 W.P. (C) No.3632 of 2017 come forward with any document to prima facie show his ownership of the concerned land. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where any relief is to be given to the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition being without any merit is 7. 8. dismissed. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 15th February, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)