Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 165 (JHR)

Nitya Nand Jha v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

2013-01-31

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner was aggrieved by the actions of the respondents in demolishing his double storeyed house constructed on a piece of land on portion of a Plot No. 7378 under Khata No. 444 of Village-Chas said to have been purchased by him through two registered sale deeds dated 25.1.1978 from the vendor namely Bagal Chandra Acharaya area measuring total 5 decimals. The petitioner, relies on the rent receipt annexed as Annexure-1 and submits that the land was also mutated in his favour. He constructed double storeyed house after sanction of the plan and expending considerable money after taking loan from various institutions. The petitioner is aggrieved as the land in question is never said to have been acquired in respect of which the proceedings under Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (for short the 'BPLE Act') were initiated by the Circle Officer, Chas vide Encroachment Case No. 24(iii) 85-86, 19/85-86 etc. 3. The petitioner had approached the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 866 of 1995(R) against the initiation of the proceedings under the B.P.L.E. Act, whereafter, vide judgment dated 17.7.1989, the respondents were directed to decide the issue as a preliminary issue after giving opportunity to the petitioner. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, over reaching the orders passed by the Patna High Court in the said writ petition, notices were issued asking for demolition or removal of the construction in respect of the persons including the petitioner residing in the said colony over the plot in question. 4. It is stated that the petitioner filed his show cause, before the appellate authority, although, the stipulated mandatory time as per the provisions of the BPLE Act, 1956 was not granted. However, the Circle Officer, Chas was directed for removal of the alleged encroachment vide order dated 13.7.1994. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro against the said original order but the appeal was decided in haste and all the contentions of the petitioner were rejected although the petitioner had filed document such as registered sale deeds, rent receipt and mutation order etc. The appellate order was passed on 5.8.1995 i.e. on Saturday which is at Annexure-8. The appellate order was passed on 5.8.1995 i.e. on Saturday which is at Annexure-8. The respondents, thereafter, started demolishing the house without giving him any opportunity to invoke the jurisdiction of the higher forum and as such, he has moved this Court against the arbitrary and illegal acts of the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the proceedings under the BPLE Act, 1956 are in the nature of summary proceedings and since the questions relating to right, title and interest of the petitioner over the land in question are involved, he may be allowed liberty to approach the competent court having civil jurisdiction for adjudication of his claim, if permissible in law. 6. The respondents-State have appeared and filed their counter affidavit. It is their stand that the land of Plot No. 7378 comprising more or less 15 acres were acquired by a notification issued by the Government of Bihar under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide Notification No. B/L-1-1591/55-1145 dated 29.2.1956, Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit. The respondents submit that earlier the petitioner had approached the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 866 of 1985(R) and stay was granted in his favour. Thereafter vide judgment dated 17.7.1989, the petitioner was directed to file show cause before respondent no. 2, who was directed to decide whether the land in question was a public land in terms of the Land Acquisition Act by way of a preliminary issue. The petitioner did not take any steps for more than one year thereafter. However, the respondents, thereafter, examined the documents produced by the petitioner before the original authority i.e. Circle Officer, Chas and also in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro preferred by the petitioner under the provisions of BPLE Act, 1956. 7. It is further submitted that after acquisition, the said land was acquired for the public purpose and Block Offices and other buildings have been constructed. The petitioner alleges to have purchased the land by virtue of a sale deed executed in the year 1977-78 much after the acquisition and even issuance of rent receipt would have no relevance in the matter when Block Offices have already been constructed over the said plot of land showing conclusive proof of possession of the authorities of the respondent-State. The petitioner alleges to have purchased the land by virtue of a sale deed executed in the year 1977-78 much after the acquisition and even issuance of rent receipt would have no relevance in the matter when Block Offices have already been constructed over the said plot of land showing conclusive proof of possession of the authorities of the respondent-State. Even the sanction of the 'Map' obtained by the respondents from the Office of the Bokaro Steel Limited where he was an employee cannot be given any weightage. It is submitted that after 10 long years since the proceedings were initiated in the year 1994, the orders were passed by the Circle Officer, Chas after completion of the proceedings and even after giving enough opportunity to the petitioner, he failed to produce any cogent evidence in his support. The petitioner, despite several, opportunities upon directions of the Patna High Court passed in July, 1989, failed to substantiate his claim on the basis of any cogent evidence to establish his claim on the said property. Several residential colonies, Block-cum-Anchal Office, Nursery, Hospital and Godown etc. have already been created after the acquisition of the relevant plot vide Notification published on 29.2.1956. However, the petitioner has raised grievance after forty years of the acquisition, which cannot be countenanced in absence of any valid proof in his favour that the said property belongs to him. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the relevant material on record including the impugned orders. The notification of acquisition is also annexed as Annexure-7 and also Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit. It appears that the encroachment proceedings were initiated against several persons to remove encroachment in respect of the plot in question. 9. From perusal of the appellate order dated 5.8.1995, it further appears that all the contentions of the petitioner were taken into account and the appellate authority also considered the issue whether the plot in question was a public land acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act by virtue of the notification dated 29.2.1956. The boundaries of the said land have also been noticed in the appellate order as reflected from the notification of 1956 and thereafter, all the evidences produced by the petitioner have also been considered in order to come to the conclusion. The boundaries of the said land have also been noticed in the appellate order as reflected from the notification of 1956 and thereafter, all the evidences produced by the petitioner have also been considered in order to come to the conclusion. The petitioner has failed to show that the land in question is a private land of the petitioner in respect of which proceedings for removal of public encroachment could not have been issued. However, the appellate authority, after proper application of mind has come to the conclusion that the lands were taken into possession pursuant to the acquisition vide notification dated 29.2.1956 whereupon Ahchal and Block buildings were also constructed and the appellant had miserably failed to prove that it was not a public land. 10. On perusal of the relevant records and after hearing the counsel for the parties, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders and the actions of the respondents as the petitioner has failed to establish that the said land is not a public land, as such, no interference can be made in the instant writ proceedings. 11. However, petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent court having civil jurisdiction for adjudication of his claim, if permissible in law. 12. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.