Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 54 (JHR)

Kaushal Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2014-01-09

N.N.TIWARI

body2014
ORDER 1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for directing the respondents not to demolish the house of the petitioners pursuant to the order dated 07.11.2013. 2. It has been stated that a proceeding was initiated under the purported provision of Bihar/Jharkhand Land Encroachment Act. Notice was issued to petitioner no.2. He filed his show-cause reply, but the same was not accepted on the ground of delay and ex-parte order has been passed holding the petitioner's raiyati plot a public land and directing him to remove encroachment. The petitioner no.2, thereafter, preferred appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra with the prayer for stay of the operation of the order passed by learned Circle Officer, Chatra. The said appeal has been registered as Land Encroachment Appeal No.27/2013. However, the said appeal has not been heard till date and no order of stay has been passed by the appellate authority. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Chatra, in the meanwhile, has issued a notice for removing the alleged encroachment including the petitioners' residential house. The petitioners, having no alternative, have filed the writ petition. 3. It has been submitted that the land in question is the petitioners' raiyati land and they have been paying rent to the State. The house in question is the only residential accommodation and shelter for the entire family. If the operation of the impugned order passed by the Circle Officer is not stayed during pendency of the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, the petitioners' residential house shall be demolished in the name of removal of encroachment and the entire family shall be rendered shelterless in this chilly winter. The petitioners and the family members shall be put to suffer irreparable loss and injury and shall be highly prejudiced. 4. Learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the proceeding was not ex-parte, as alleged by the petitioners. Opportunities were given to the petitioner no.2 to file show-cause and to produce the documents relating to the land, but he failed to do so. Ultimately, the Circle Officer, Chatra passed the said order holding the land 'a public land' and directing the petitioner to remove the encroachment. He further submitted that the petitioner no.2 has preferred an appeal and the appeal is pending. The petitioners should have pressed for passing appropriate order before the appellate authority. In stead thereof, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. He further submitted that the petitioner no.2 has preferred an appeal and the appeal is pending. The petitioners should have pressed for passing appropriate order before the appellate authority. In stead thereof, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. 6. The petitioners have claimed that the land in question, which has been held as public land, is their raiyati land and they have been paying rent to the State. The petitioners have constructed their residential house and the entire family is residing in the house. That is the only shelter for them. The petitioners have also annexed rent receipts granted by the State (annexure-1/1) and the holding receipt issued by the Municipal authority, Chatra (annexure-2). The petitioner no.2 has filed appeal and the appeal is pending before the appellate authority. It has been stated that the appellate authority, in spite of the prayer made, has not passed order of stay of the order passed by the Circle Officer, Chatra. 7. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner no.2 to pursue his appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra. 8. Until the appeal is disposed of, the order dated 07.11.2013 passed by the Circle Officer, Chatra in Land Encroachment Case No.02/2013-14 shall be in abeyance. I.A. No. 106 of 2014 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners does not press this I.A. 10. I.A. No. 106 of 2014 is, accordingly, disposed of, as not pressed.