Jharkhand High Court
Sitaram Prasad vs Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd on 25 September, 2012
Equivalent citations: 2013 (1) AJR 77
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 4459 of 2007
Sitaram Prasad ... ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. and Ors. ... Respondents.
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH.
...
For the Petitioner : - Mr. Kailash Prasad Deo
For the Respondent(TISCO) : - Mr. G. M. Mishra
For the Respondent-State : - Mr. Saket Upadhyay
...
04/25.09.2012Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 30.12.2005 passed by the S.D.O.-cum-Deputy Collector Land Reforms, East Singhbhum in B.P.L.E. Case No. 12/89-90 filed by the respondent no. 1 under Section 3 of the B.P.L.E. Act 1956. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 24.07.2006 passed in B.P.L.E. Appeal No. 22/06-07 by the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur affirming the original order and the order passed by learned Commissioner, East Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division, Chaibasa in Revision being B.P.L.E. Revision No. 28 of 2007 whereby learned Commissioner held that revision is not maintainable. By the aforesaid orders petitioner has been found to be encroacher over the land of Plot No. 2565 Mouza-Sakchi area 25 Feet X 30 Feet.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is legal heir and successor of Chintamani Prasad Son of Nand Kumar, who is in physical possession over the land since 1950 by constructing house and other structure within knowledge and adverse to the interest of the State of Bihar/Jharkhand and respondent no. 1, Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd, Jamshedpur (In short TISCO) and as such, he has acquired his right, title and interest over the said land. It is further submitted by the petitioner that petitioner has no other land or house at Jamshedpur and he is living over the land in question without any interruption after the death of said Chintamani Prasad. In the year 1989, the proceeding under Section 3 of the BPLE Act 1956 was initiated for removal of the said encroachment over the land mentioned in Schedule 'A' of the petition before the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer-cum- Collector stating that on the basis of the lease registered on 06.08.1985 between the State of Bihar and the respondent no. 1-TISCO, the present petitioner has made encroachment in a portion of vacant land shown in Schedule 'A'. It is submitted that the petitioner appeared after notice and filed his show cause on 12.12.2005 interalia taking stand that proceeding is barred by limitation. The name of the petitioner has been entered into the record of rights published in the year 1955 and the possession of Chintamani Prasad has been shown in the aforesaid record of rights and the nature of the land has been mentioned as Makan Kutchha Khapraposh. The said final possession of Chintamani Prasad and the petitioner are continuing since prior to 1950 adverse to the interest of State of Jharkhand and TISCO, respondent no. 1.
It is further submitted that in the said show cause, it has been also indicated that petitioner is residing with his family members upon the house constructed by Chintamani Prasad. However, it is submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the Original Authority without considering the show cause of the petitioner on 30.12.2005 (Annexure-4). Thereafter, the petitioner preferred BPLE Appeal No. 22 of 2006 before the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur against the order dated 30.12.2005. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur without appreciating the facts and circumstances as well as show cause of the appellant/petitioner herein rejected the appeal and directed to remove the encroachment within 15 days. The said appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation vide order dated 24.07.2006(Annexure-6). Thereafter, the petitioner filed Revision being BPLE Revision No. 28 of 2006 before the Court of Commissioner, Singhbhum, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 12.04.2007 holding that Revision is not maintainable under the Act of 1956. Learned counsel for the petitioner based on the aforesaid facts submits that the question raised in the present BPLE proceeding relates to complicated issue of facts relating to title and adverse possession of the petitioner and in a summary proceeding the petitioner could not have been directed to be removed as a encroacher. However, the respondent authorities have not taken into consideration his show cause and the Appellate Authority has also dismissed the appeal without taking into account the specific ground taken in appeal on the point of limitation alone.
Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that from perusal of the appellate order contained in Annexure-6, it would appear that for removal of the alleged encroachment over the vacant piece of land on lease of the petitioner-company by the State of Bihar in the year 1985, a proceeding under the BPLE Act were initiated in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Collector, Jamshedpur. It is further submitted that despite notices the petitioner made no effort to file his reply till 26.12.1989 whereafter the record of impugned order was transferred to the Court of learned In charge Deputy Collector, Tata Lease, whereafter again notices were issued to the petitioner but he refused to accept the same and the proceedings remained in limbo. Thereafter, proceedings were again revived after nine years on 01.02.2001, notices were again issued to the petitioner on 14.11.2005 whereafter the petitioner appeared before the original court on three consecutive dates but kept on asking for time without filing his show cause. The Original Authority, thereafter, proceeded to hear the said proceeding to decide ex-parte and passed the order of removal of the encroachment on 30.12.2005. The proceedings, therefore, remained pending for 16 years. The petitioner did not file any appeal within 30 days period prescribed and when he preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, East Singbhum, Jamshedpur being BPLE No. 22/06-07, no application for condonation of delay was filed although the appeal was itself delayed by more than six months. The Appellate Authority has taken into account all these facts while passing the impugned order on 24.07.2006 for removal of encroachment. It is further submitted that since the revision is not maintainable under BPLE Act, the revision being BPLE Revision No. 22/06 was ultimately dismissed on 12.04.2007. Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has not been able to produce any single chit of paper before Original authority in support of his contention that in the record of rights the name of Chintamani Prasad has been entered in the year 1955, and the said paper has also not been brought on record in the instant writ petition. In the circumstances, it is submitted that only on the basis of bland submission, the plea has been taken that the petitioner is in existence since 1950 over the said plot perfecting his title adverse to the respondents. It is further submitted that the petitioner being the encroacher on public land can only be removed in the proceeding under the BPLE Act, 1956. No complicated question of facts and title are involved with the present case as no semblance of any title and ownership is produced by the petitioner regarding the plot in question.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order and relevant materials on record, it appears that the petitioner had appeared before Original Authority but he had not filed any show cause whereafter the Original Authority passed the order impugned at Annexure-4 dated 30.12.2005. The Appellant Authority in his order, contained at Annexure-6 dated 24.07.2006, has also taken into account that even after revival of the proceeding in the year 2001, after notice to the petitioner, he appeared for three consecutive dates, but did not file his show cause whereafter, the Original Authority had proceeded to decide the proceeding ex-parte. It has been further been taken into account that the appeal itself was delayed for more than six months for which no application for condonation of delay had been filed on behalf of the petitioner. In these circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that he has a valid claim of title on land in question, on the basis of the possession continued since 1950 i.e. before execution of lease, has been rejected by the Appellant Authority. The Revision being not maintainable has also been rejected on the sole ground by the learned Commissioner, East Singhbhum Kolhan Division, Chaibasa. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently tried to impress that the land in question is in possession of the predecessor of the petitioner since 1950 and construction have already been made thereupon in which he is residing with his family members in a manner adverse and to the knowledge of the respondents. However, it is also apparent that the petitioner has not initiated any proceeding for perfection of his title based upon the aforesaid claim and adverse possession since 1950 to that of the respondents if at all such claim is tenable in law. The land is a public land. The respondents have, therefore, taken up proceeding under the BPLE Act, 1956 for removal of the encroachment. However, if the petitioner has any justifiable claim of ownership, title and possession over the same, it was open for them to move before competent Court of civil jurisdiction for adjudication of his right, title, interest and possession over the land, but no such effort has been made on the part of the petitioner.
In the said circumstances, I do not find that proceeding under BPLE Act, 1956 suffers from any flaw as the land itself is a public land on which the petitioner has been found as encroacher. The impugned order, therefore, do not suffers from any infirmity and requires no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be permitted liberty to approach the appropriate forum for suitable adjudication of right, title and interest if available in law.
Needless to say, if the petitioner has such remedy available in law, he may avail it in accordance with law. However no relief can be granted in this writ petition.
With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is dismissed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Kamlesh/