Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 361 (JHR)

Binod Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India

2013-03-12

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The notice dated 15.1.2013, under Section 4 (1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 and the order dated 31.01.2013 passed under Section 5(1) of the said Act, directing the petitioner to vacate the lands in question are under challenge in this writ petition. 3. The grounds for challenge primarily are that the petitioner is a lawful purchaser of the said land devolved upon him through the original raiyat Ram Kumar Lal and Munna Lal and purchased by him in the year 2005 through registered sale deed, copy of khatian is annexed at Annexure-2. 4. The petitioner assails the notice and order on the ground that they do not contain description of the lands said to be encroached by the petitioner and the impugned order at Annexure – 4 has been passed in a summary manner, is also vague, so far as description of the lands alleged to be encroached by the petitioner is concerned. It is further submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that in similar circumstances, this Court interfered in exercise of such powers by the respondents in W.P. (C). No. 3836 of 2012 vide order dated 2nd August, 2012 as also in W.P. (C). No. 798 of 2013 vide order dated 13th February, 2013 and another analogous cases decided on 14.02.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that despite being the rightful owner of lands in question which he was purchased from the previous vendor, vide Annexure-1, petitioner is being forced to be evicted on the basis of such notice as well as order which are vague and non speaking and without taking into account the contention of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the Railways, however, submitted that the petitioner has encroached over Railway lands and in exercise of power under the Act of 1971 by the Estate Officer after proper notice, order of eviction has been passed under the relevant provision of the Act. However, no counter affidavit has been filed on their behalf till date. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant materials on record. However, no counter affidavit has been filed on their behalf till date. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant materials on record. From perusal of the impugned notice dated 15.1.2013 contained at Annexure-3 and the order dated 31.01.2013 contained at Annexure-4, it is apparent that the schedule furnished thereunder do not indicate the proper description of the land, which is said to be encroached by the petitioner. It is the requirement of the proper notice that it should contain sufficient description of the subject matter to enable the aggrieved parties to furnish a proper show cause in order to defend themselves. 7. In that view of the matter and also taking into account the orders passed in similar cases as relied upon by the petitioner, impugned notice dated 15.1.2013 and the order dated 31.01.2013 cannot be sustained in law as being vague and lacking adequate description of the property said to be encroached by the petitioner from which he is sought to be evicted. Accordingly, the impugned notice and order are set aside. However, it will be open for the respondents to act in accordance with law after service of notice giving proper description of the lands said to be encroached by the petitioner and after giving adequate opportunity of hearing in terms of the Act, 1971 pass a reasoned order, thereafter. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.