Jharkhand High Court
Sangita Agrawal @ Sangeeta Agrawal W/O ... vs State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 18 May, 2023
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 2480 of 2023
1. Sangita Agrawal @ Sangeeta Agrawal W/o Arun Agrawal aged
about 55 years R/o Gorakh Nath Land, Near Sai Niwas Hotel,
Upper Bazar, P.O- GPO, PS- Kotwali Ranchi- 834001
2. Sheela Kumari W/o Awdhesh Kumar Singh aged about 61 years
R/o- Town- Redma South P.O and P.S.- Daltonganj, District-
Palamu- 822110
3. Mohan Kumar Singh S/o Narendra Bahadur Singh aged about 64
years R/o Near PHED Colony, Belwadika, Gurudhwara Road,
Ward No. 18, P.O and P.S- Medninagar, District- Palamu- 822110
4. Santosh Kumar Ram S/o Late Mutur Ram aged about 40 years R/o
Village- Nimiya, P.O and P.S- Chainpur, Daltonganj, District-
Palamu- 822110
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through the Commissioner, Palamu Division,
Collectorate Building, Palamu, Medininagar, P.O and P.S-
Medininagar, District- Palamu- 822110
2. Deputy Commissioner, Palamu; officiating from his address at
3R9+4VM, Forest Colony, Medininagar, P.O and P.S-
Medininagar, District- Palamu- 822110
3. Zila Parishad, Daltonganj through The Deputy Development
Commissioner, Palamu-cum- Chief, Executive Officer, Zila
Parishad (District Council) officiating from his address at
3R9+4VM, Forest Colony, Medininagar, P.O and P.S-
Medininagar, District- Palamu- 822110
4. Executive Engineer, Department of Building Construction,
Daltonganj, Zila Parishad (District Council) officiating from his
office at Collectorate Building, Palamu, Medininagar, P.O and P.S-
Medininagar, District- Palamu- 822110
5. Junior Engineer, Department of Building Construction,
Daltonganj, Zila Parishad (District Council) officiating from his
office at Collectorate Building, Palamu, Medininagar, P.O and P.S-
Medininagar, District- Palamu- 822110
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Amitesh Kumar Geasen, Advocate
---
04/18.05.2023 Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
"a. For the issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) for quashing of the order bearing no 84/ . dated 31st of January 2023 (Annexure- 3) wherein the Petitioner have been directed to vacate the shop as it has been declared as 'condemned'. The order bearing no 84/ . dated 31st of 2 January 2023 is wholly illegal and has been passed in violence to the principles of natural justice.
AND b. For the issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) to accept the rent for the shops situated in Zila Parishad Bhawan, Daltongaj, situated near in front of Story School, Station Road, Daltongang.
AND c. For the issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) to stay the operation, implementation and the execution of the order bearing no 84/ . dated 31st of January 2023 (Annexure- 3) till the pendency of the instant writ petition."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are in occupation of the premises by way of allotment and the shops are the source of income for the petitioners. By referring to the impugned order dated 31.01.2023, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the order is based on some inspection report prepared by the Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Building Division, Daltonganj, but neither the report was provided to the petitioners nor any opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners before passing the impugned order asking the petitioners to immediately vacate the premises.
4. The learned counsel further submits that pursuant to order passed by this Court on 15.05.2023, the learned counsel for the respondents were directed to seek instructions and produce a copy of the report on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed and it was also directed that the said report can be obtained through email. The learned counsel submits that pursuant to such order, the learned counsel for the respondents has produced a minutes of meeting dated 22.11.2022 wherein the discussion in connection with the premises involved in this case is at Sl. No. 10. He has submitted that a copy of the said minutes of meeting has already been provided to the learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned counsel submits that upon perusal of the minutes of meeting, it appears that there was also some issue regarding enhancement of rent, but no steps regarding 3 enhancement of rent or for entering into any fresh agreement has been taken from the side of the respondents. He has also submitted that as per the minutes of meeting, a report was to be prepared by the Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer jointly by conducting on the spot inspection with measurement and they were also to report as to whether the building is required to be repaired or dismantled. It was also anticipated in the minutes of meeting that the entire building is to be converted into a commercial complex for which necessary fund is to be made available from other sources of the Government.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in spite of order dated 15.05.2023, the report on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed has not been produced before this Court.
6. He has also submitted that the petitioners have also represented before the Deputy Commissioner stating that neither any alternative arrangement has been made for the petitioners, nor it has been considered as to whether the building could be repaired. He submits that no order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the respondents are bent upon demolishing the building.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon a judgement passed by this Court in LPA No. 423 of 2014 reported in 2015 (3) JLJR 100 (Kishan Parasrampuria Vs. The Ranchi Municipal Corporation and Ors.) to submit that before taking a decision regarding demolition of a building, principles of natural justice are required to be followed.
8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the minutes of meeting has been produced and he has also referred to the letter dated 28.01.2023 issued by the Executive Engineer and addressed to the Deputy Development Commissioner - cum- Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Palamau. He submits that in the said letter it has been mentioned that an inspection was done on 25.01.2023 and the building was found in a condemned condition and there was all probability of serious accident and by this letter, the building was declared condemned. He has also submitted that another letter dated 28.11.2022 has been produced wherein decision of the meeting dated 22.11.2022 has been referred and in the said letter, it has been mentioned that the building is to be demolished 4 and marketing complex is to be prepared. The said letter also mentions about the repair or dismantle.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that the inspection was conducted on 25.01.2023 and therefore, the decision for demolition and declaration of the building as 'condemned' has been done on the basis of the report. However, the report of on-the- spot inspection conducted by the Engineer of the department has not been produced before this Court in spite of order dated 15.05.2023.
10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that the petitioners are occupants of certain shops which belong to the respondents and the petitioners are allottee of the shops. It further appears that in a proceeding of Zila Parishad, Palamau dated 22.11.2022, certain discussions were made in connection with enhancement of rent and also in connection with exploring the possibility of repair of the building or if the building is in a condemned condition, then the building is to be demolished and fresh marketing complex has to come on the said property. The decision was subject to inspection. It further appears from the letter dated 28.01.2023 that certain inspection was conducted on 25.01.2023, but the inspection report has not been produced before this Court in spite of order dated 15.05.2023, much less a copy of the inspection report having been provided to the petitioners before passing the impugned order dated 31.01.2023.
11. It also appears that the petitioners have approached the Deputy Commissioner raising their grievance and in the said communication, they have also raised a grievance that no alternative arrangement has been made for the petitioners and a submission that the building could be repaired and further that the respondents are not taking rent from them.
12. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered view that the matter is required to be looked into by the Deputy Commissioner taking into account the entire records to figure out if there is any inspection report on record. In case any inspection report is found on record, a copy of the same should also be provided to the petitioners.
513. This Court also finds that a dispute is being raised by the petitioners as to whether the building is to be demolished or it is to be repaired. Even as per the proceedings of zila parishad, both the possibilities were to be considered upon inspection. In such circumstances, if any inspection has been done in absence of the petitioners, then a fresh inspection report is to be called for by constituting a team of experts and such inspection should be done in presence of the petitioners. The inspection report is also required to be prepared on the spot and a copy of the same should also be given to the petitioners. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner is required to hear the parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
14. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the rainy season is approaching and buildings in condemned condition and dilapidated condition become more dangerous during rainy season and therefore, the entire exercise is directed to be completed by the Deputy Commissioner within a period of 20 days from the date of appearance of the petitioners.
15. The Deputy Commissioner shall grant an opportunity of hearing not only to the petitioners, but also to the respondent nos. 3 to
5. The petitioners as well as the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 shall appear before the Deputy Commissioner on 23.05.2023. Upon their appearance, the Deputy Commissioner shall do the needful in the light of the observations and directions passed by this Court within a period of 20 days from the date of their appearance i.e from 23.05.2023.
16. While taking the final decision, the Deputy Commissioner should also be conscious of the fact that the shops are the source of livelihood for the petitioners and if possible, the Deputy Commissioner shall make certain alternative arrangements till the new building is constructed on the spot in case the building is to be demolished and new commercial complex has to come on the said property. The Deputy Commissioner shall also take a call regarding any priority in the matter of fresh allotment of shop to the petitioners in the new building.
17. It is further directed that the petitioners should immediately pay the arrears of rent to the respondents. The arrears of rent up-to-date, is 6 directed be deposited before the Deputy Commissioner which may be remitted to the concerned authority.
18. Till the final decision is taken by the Deputy Commissioner, the impugned notice be kept in abeyance.
19. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
20. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Pankaj