Jharkhand High Court
Parbati Devi vs State Of Jharkhand on 15 May, 2018
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 2390 of 2018
Parbati Devi, wife of Ram Narayan Mahato, aged about 65 years,
resident of Chhota Gamaharia, Adarsh Nagar, P.O. & P.S.-Gamaharia,
District-Seraikella Kharsawan ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharsawan
3. Circle Officer, Gamharia, Seraikella-Kharsawan... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. C.G.A. Bardhan, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Apurv, AC to GA
-----
Order No. 02 Dated: 15.05.2018 At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects as pointed out by the office are ignored for the present.
The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to make necessary amendment in the designation of the respondent no. 3 mentioned in the cause title of the writ petition.
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the notice contained in memo no. 893 dated 10.05.2018 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) which was pasted by the respondents on the petitioner's house in connection with BPLE Case No. 43 of 2017-18 as well as the entire proceeding of the said case, whereby the petitioner has been directed to remove the alleged encroachment (the entire house) by 15.05.2018, failing which the same would be forcibly removed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased a property appertaining to Khata No. 582, Plot No. 31 old, new Plot No. 134 and Plot No. 25 (old), new Plot No. 129, Thana No. 66, Village-Gamaharia, P.S.-Seraikella, District-Seraikella Kharsawan by way of a sale-deed bearing no. 6538 dated 14.12.1979. The petitioner got her name mutated on 06.01.1996 by the order of the respondent no. 3 - the Circle Officer, Gamharia. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in possession of the said land since 1979 without objection from any corner. Suddenly, the petitioner 2 received a notice issued under Section 6(2) of the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1956") which was pasted on the petitioner's house in the last week of April, 2018 directing the petitioner to remove the construction (the house) within a period of one week, which is said to be an encroachment. One of the affected persons by the action of the respondents approached the office of the respondent no. 2 - the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharsawan for submitting a representation/objection, however, the officials of the said office refused to accept the same. Thereafter, the impugned notice as contained in memo no. 893 dated 10.05.2018 was again served to the petitioner directing her to remove the construction within two days, failing which the same would be demolished forcibly. Moreover, the details of the land mentioned in the first notice issued to the petitioner (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) shows that the same is for different plot which is in possession of some other person. However, the respondents without verifying the said fact are adamant to demolish the structure (house) standing over the aforesaid land.
3. Learned AC to GA submits that since the respondents have found the petitioner in encroachment of the land in question, appropriate action for removal of the said encroachment is being taken.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and looking into the contents of the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner has contended in the writ petition that she has been in possession of the land in question since 1979. The said land has been mutated in her name in revenue records and she is paying rent. She has also been paying holding tax to the Municipal Corporation, Adityapur. The petitioner has also agitated a factual issue that the notice issued to the petitioner in BPLE Case No. 43 of 2017-18 mentions in Plot No. 646, Khata No. 155 containing description of a different land to that of the petitioner. The petitioner has also contended that before issuing the notice under Section 6(2) of the Act, 1956, she has not been heard by the respondent no. 3.
5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the 3 petitioner is at liberty to file a representation/objection in Encroachment Case No. 43 of 2017-18 by 31.05.2018. On receipt on such representation/objection, the respondent no. 3 shall take up the representation/objection of the petitioner and on verifying the relevant record and on providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of the representation/objection. Till the said order is passed, the respondents shall not take step for demolition of the house in question. The operation of the impugned notice contained in memo no. 893 dated 10.05.2018 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) shall be kept in abeyance till the said order is passed by the respondent no. 3.
6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid liberty and direction.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Manish