The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6716 of 2012 --- 1(i) Nirmal Kour, Wife of Late Trilok Singh 1(ii) Awtar Singh, Son of Late Trilok Singh 1(iii) Pritpal Singh, Son of Late Trilok Singh S. No. (i) to (iii) all residents of Sabarmati Road, New Baridih, P.O. & P.S.- Sidgora Town, Jamshedpur, Dist- East Singhbhum 1(iv) Savinder Kour, W/o Amrik Singh, D/o Late Trilok Singh, Resident of H. No. 28, Saraswati Niwas, Santkutia, Baridih Colony, P.O. & P.S. – Baridih, District- East Singhbhum. … … Petitioners Versus (1) The State of Jharkhand. (2) The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, P.O.& P.S.- Sachi, District- East Singhbhum. (3) The Sub-Divisional Officer-cum- Collector under Bihar Land Encroachment act, Jamshedpur, Dhalbhum, P.O. & P.S.- Sachi, District- East Singhbhum. (4) The Additional Collector. Tata Lease, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S.- Sachi, District- East Singhbhum. (5) The Tata Iron & Steel Limited, Jamshedpur Now Tata Steel Limited, Jamshedpur, Registered Office - 24, Homi Modi Street Fort Bombay and its workers at Jamshedpur, Pargana, Dalbhum, District- … Respondents East Singhbhum. … --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners For the Resp. No. 5 For the Resp.- State
Legal Reasoning
--- : Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Gaurav Priyadarshi, Advocate : Mr. G.M. Mishra, Advocate : Mr. Manish Mishra, Advocate : Mr. Vineet Prakash, AC to SC-IV --- 11/18.07.2024 Learned counsel for the parties are present. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: "For the issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, Rule / Rules, order/orders Direction/Directions to this Hon'ble court or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 12-01-2011 (Annexure-5) passed in B.P.L.E. Case No. 1277 of 1994 passed by The Sub - Divisional Officier Dhalbhoom, Jamshedpur whereby and where under the respondent no-3 exceeded his jurisdiction and passed the order on 12-01-2011 u/s 6 of the B.P.L.E. Act directing the petitioner to remove the encroachment Area 30,000 sq. ft. of the village- Nildih under Plot No. 4861 (portion), Khata No. -71 Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum new Survey Plot No. 2579(P), 2581(P) and 2580, New Khata No.-5 of Ward No. 15 within a period of 15 days from the order without giving appropriate opportunity of hearing the matter although the said 1 plot is in possession of the petitioner or his ancestors for 50 years and for further prays for quashing the order dated 27/09/2012 (Annexure-12) passed in B.P.L.E. Appeal No. 138/2010-11 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur whereby and where under the R.No. 2 exceeded his jurisdiction and rejected the Appeal filed by the petitioner and passed the exparte order dated 27/09/2012 without giving any opportunity of hearing of appeal and further prays for a direction upon the respondents and directing them to consider the case of the petitioner and to settle the said land in favour of the petitioner as per the provision of the Bihar Land Reform Act as well as the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 because the petitioner is in the possession of the said plot for 50 years and the petitioner is a land less person and he is residing on the Plot No. 4861 (portion), New Plot No. 2579(P), 2581(P), AND 2580, Khata No.-71, New Khata No. 5 Area 30,000 sq. ft. of village- Nildih, Jamshedpur and the land in question has not come under the lease hold land of Tata Steel, It's come under Appendix- E and the petitioner further prays that to pass an order of compensation of Rs 80,00000/-(Eighty lakh only) in favour of the petitioner on account of demolishing the house building of the petitioner and also ruined the movable assets and household articles of the petitioner by the respondents during the pendency of the B.P.L.E. Appeal no.-133 of 2010-2011 filed by the petitioner which was pending before the Deputy Commissioner East Singhbhum Respondent no.-2 and further prays that for a direction upon the respondents and restrain them and direct them to not raise any construction over the said land till the disposal of this writ application And/Or for such other Writ/(s) Rule/(s) Order/(s) Direction/(s) as your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner" 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been in possession of the property involved in the present case for a long time. However, a proceeding being B.P.L.E. Case No. 1277 of 1994 was initiated with respect to the property being in Mouza – Nildih, Khata No. 71, R.S. Plot No. 4861(P) Area 30,000 sq. ft. corresponding to new plot no. 2464, khata No. 5, Ward No. 15 Area 30,000 sq. ft. at the instance of the private respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the original petitioner had filed the show-cause reply vide Annexure- 3 dated 11.11.1997 and in the midst of the proceeding, one petition for amendment was filed by the private respondent wherein it was stated that on verification, the new survey plot number was found to be encroached which was bearing New Survey plot Nos. 2579(P), 2581(P) and 2580 of Ward No. 15, JNAC and not in new plot No. 2464 of Ward No. 15, JNAC. The petition for amendment was filed on 01.09.2010. 2 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to paragraph 10
Decision
of the writ petition to submit that the said amendment petition was not allowed by the respondent no. 3. 6. The learned counsel submits that however while passing the impugned order the authority passed an order of eviction with regard to the property which was mentioned in the petition seeking amendment. The learned counsel submits that since the amendment petition was not allowed, under such circumstances, the order of eviction with respect to the property mentioned in the amendment petition could not have been passed. He further submits that upon the amendment being allowed, the petitioners would have had a right to respond to the amendment. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners have been prejudiced on account of the order of eviction having been passed with respect to the property which was mentioned in the petition seeking amendment. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent has referred to the impugned order to submit that there is an order to evict the original petitioner from the property mentioned in the amendment petition. It goes to show that the petitioners are in illegal possession of the said property. 8. A counter-affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the private respondent in which no specific response has been given with respect to the statement made by the petitioners that the amendment petition (Annexure-4) was not allowed. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent- State has also opposed the prayer. However, the learned counsel for the respondent- State has referred to counter-affidavit dated 07.01.2013. From perusal of the counter-affidavit, it appears that no specific reply has been given with respect to the statement made in paragraph 10 of the writ petition wherein it has been mentioned by the writ petitioners that amendment was not allowed. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not in dispute that initially the proceeding was initiated under Bihar Land 3 Encroachment Act with respect to the property having description as Mouza – Nildih, Khata No. 71, R.S. Plot No. 4861(P), Area 30,000 sq. ft. and corresponding new plot number was stated to be 2464 khata No. 5, Ward No. 15, Area 30,000 sq. ft. The application was filed by the private respondent. The original petitioner had responded way back as on 11.11.1997. However, the matter remained pending and a petition seeking amendment with respect to the description of the property was filed on 01.09.2010. It has been specifically stated by the petitioners in paragraph 10 of the writ petition that the amendment was not allowed which has not been denied by the respondents in their counter-affidavit. However, the order of eviction was passed with respect to the property whose description has been mentioned in the petition seeking amendment. 11. This Court finds that the order of eviction has been passed without allowing the petition for amendment and on account of such fact, the petitioners have been prejudiced, inasmuch as, the petitioners did not get any chance to respond to the amended description of property which was sought to be amended by the petition seeking amendment. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 12.01.2011 passed in BPLE Case No. 1277 of 1994 with respect to the property which was sought to be corrected through the petition seeking amendment, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. On the similar ground, the appellate order as contained in B.P.L.E. Appeal No. 138/2010-11 dated 27.09.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur is also set-aside. 13. Accordingly, the matter is remitted back to the Court of Sub- Divisional Officer-cum- Collector under Bihar Land Encroachment act, Dhalbhum at Jamshedpur. 14. The petitioners would file a fresh show-cause incorporating their objection with respect to the amended description of property as mentioned in the amendment petition as contained in Annexure- 4. The said authority shall pass an appropriate order in connection with 4 the prayer seeking amendment and after granting due opportunity and upon hearing the petitioners as well as the private respondent pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 15. The parties to appear before the said authority on 27th of August 2024. 16. The parties to cooperate with the proceedings as the matter of eviction is of the year 1994 and the authority shall pass appropriate order as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournments. The fresh order be passed within six months from the date of appearance of the parties. It will certainly be open to the parties to file written submissions in support of their respective contentions so that no point is left out from consideration while passing fresh order. 17. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 18. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. Pankaj (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 5