Jharkhand High Court
Nav Kumar Satpathy vs The State Of Jharkhand on 29 November, 2021
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.4491 of 2013
---------
Nav Kumar Satpathy ......... Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Collector, under BPLE Act, Gahmaria, P.O. & P.S. Gahmaria, District Saraikella-Kharsawan
3. The Land Reforms Development Commission, Gahmaria, District Saraikella-Kharsawan
4. The Circle Officer, Gahmaria, District Saraikella-Kharsawan .......... Respondents With W.P.(C) No.4497 of 2013 Sudarshan Satpathy ......... Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Collector, under BPLE Act, Gahmaria, P.O. & P.S. Gahmaria, District Saraikella-Kharsawan
3. The Land Reforms Development Commission, Gahmaria, District Saraikella-Kharsawan
4. The Circle Officer, Gahmaria, District Saraikella-Kharsawan .......... Respondents
---------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, Advocate : Mr. Kaustav Panda, Advocate For the State : Mr. Suraj Prakash, AC to GP-II : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Shahi, Advocate
---
09/29.11.2021 These writ petitions are under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the notice issued under Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, now the Jharkhand Public Land Encroachment Act, has been questioned.
The objection has been made with respect to the fact that since the notice only has been challenged, therefore, the writ petitions may be disposed of by giving liberty to the writ petitioners to appear before the concerned authority to put their defence before the authority who has issued the notice for its consideration as provided under Section 5 of the Jharkhand Public Land Encroachment Act.
This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has found from the stand of the learned counsel appearing for the State by taking into consideration the fact that in the Public Land Encroachment Act, when notice is being issued, an objection is required to be filed which is to be considered in view of the provision of Section 5 of the Act. Since the writ petitioner has questioned the notice and as such, at this stage, this Court will not be an appropriate Forum to adjudicate the issue as to whether the land or the part thereof has been encroached or not rather under Section 4, 5 and 6 thereof the fact about encroachment can well be adjudicated by leading evidence and by appreciation of the evidence by the concerned authority. This Court is of the view that, although, the notice can be interfered with by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if the notice is being questioned on the ground of jurisdictional error but as would appear from the pleading made in the writ petitions, no such ground has been taken rather the notice has been challenged on merit of the issue and therefore, it would not be proper for this Court to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred to this Court to show interference at this stage.
Accordingly, the instant writ petitions fail and are dismissed. However, it is left open to the writ petitioners to file appropriate defence along with the relevant documents before the concerned authority for its consideration.
The concerned authority will decide the issue in accordance with Law after providing opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners.
Let the entire exercise be completed within the period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.
Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Rohit-Saurabh/-