Jharkhand High Court
Dwarika Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 29 June, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 JHA 439
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.1723 of 2020
Dwarika Mandal ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary Revenue,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
2. Deputy Commissioner, Giridih.
3. Deputy Development Commissioner, Giridih.
4. Sub-Divisional Officer, Giridih
5. Land Reform Deputy Collector, Giridih.
6. Circle Officer, Deori, Giridih.
7. Circle Inspector, Deori, Giridih.
.... .... Respondents
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, A.C. to A.G.
--------
02/29.06.2020 The present writ petition is taken up today through Video
conferencing.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the notice dated 25th February, 2020 issued by the Circle Officer, Deori, Giridih- respondent no.6 whereby the petitioner has been informed that an order has been passed under Clause (C) of Section 5(1) of the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1956") for removal of encroachment from the land pertaining to Plot No.1513 measuring an area of 47 feet x 29 feet (appears to be 47' x 2' in the notice) of village Kisgo within Thana No.236, P.S. Deori, District- Giridih (hereinafter referred as the said land), alleging inter alia, that said part of land is a public land directing the petitioner to remove the encroachment over the same by 7th March, 2020, failing which the petitioner would be liable for prosecution. Further prayer has been made for quashing the notice dated 9th June, 2020 issued by the respondent no.6 whereby the petitioner and three other persons have been directed to remove the structure/house by 22nd June, 2020 constructed over the said land, which according to respondent no.6, is a public land. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents not to demolish his house which has been constructed over the land appertaining to Khata No.44, Plot No.1520 measuring an area of 3 decimals (out of total area 37 decimals) which was purchased by the petitioner's wife, namely, Dulari Devi vide Sale Deed No.6272 dated -2- 16th August, 1989 from Tikait Kamakhya Narayan Singh and Sri Satya Narayan Singh both son of Tikait Shyam Sundar Singh for a valuable consideration and there has been no construction made by the petitioner over Plot No.1513 of Khata No.128 as has been alleged in the impugned notices.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute with regard to alleged encroachment over Plot No.1513 of Khata No.128 of village Kisgo, Thana No.236, P.S. Deori, District Giridih had earlier arisen in the year 1992 leading to initiation of a proceeding being Revenue Misc. Case No.24 of 1992-93 by the respondent no.6. After due enquiry, the respondent no.6 passed order dated 18th December, 1992 (copy of which has been annexed as part Annexure-8 to the writ petition) holding inter alia that as per the report of Anchal Amin, the petitioner was constructing a house over Plot No.1520 measuring an area of 3 decimals. It was also held by the respondent no.6 in the said order that Plot No.1513 of Khata No.128 measuring an area of 1.36 acres is a Government land, over which the petitioner was not making any construction. The respondent no.6 also forwarded a copy of the order dated 18th December, 1992 to the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Giridih. It is thus submitted that a clear finding has been given by the respondent no.6 in Revenue Misc. Case No.24 of 1992-93 and the said finding has not been challenged in any superior court of law. Therefore, the action of the respondent no.6 in issuing the impugned notices is highly arbitrary.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner on instruction submits that after filing of the writ petition, the respondent no.6 has already demolished the part of the building of the petitioner standing over Plot No.1520. The petitioner has the apprehension that rest of the structure/building may also be demolished by the respondent no.6.
5. Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, A.C. to learned A.G. submits that the petitioner has the efficacious/statutory remedy provided under Section 11 of the Act, 1956 against the impugned notices/orders, hence, the writ petition is not maintainable.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view that the petitioner has already been issued notice under Section 6(2) of the Act, 1956, I am of the view that the petitioner has efficacious/statutory remedy of filing appeal as provided under Section -3- 11 of the Act, 1956. Hence, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition on merit at this stage. The petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal against the order(s) passed by the respondent no.6 which are subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.
7. Taking note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during pendency of the present writ petition, the respondent no.6 has already proceeded to remove the alleged encroachment over the land in question, it is directed that if the petitioner prefers an appeal in terms of Section 11 of the Act, 1956 before the respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner, Giridih by 13th July, 2020 along with an application seeking interim relief for staying the order passed by the respondent no.6, no further demolition of the structure in question will be made till the respondent no.2 considers the petitioner's such application for interim relief.
8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid liberty, and direction.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Rohit