Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1140 (JHR)

Sanjiv Mahato v. State of Jharkhand

2016-07-26

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2016
ORDER : 1. In the first writ petition petitioner Sanjiv Mahto sought quashing of letter no.856 dated 11th June, 2014 issued by the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur which according to him is an ex-parte report contradictory to the finally published survey map as also his earlier report in respect of the same subject matter. He also sought quashing of letter no. 1509 dated 1st July, 2014 issued by the respondent no.3 – Special Officer, Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee (JNAC for short) based on the same report of the Circle Officer dated 11th June, 2014 vacating order of status-quo granted on 3rd January, 2014. It is also prayed for institution of a case for unauthorised construction and cancellation of the sanctioned plan in respect of respondent no.5 under the provisions of the bye-laws of the planning standard, bye-laws of JNAC and Sections 432 and 436 of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011. 2. This petitioner's case relates to sanction of a building plan of new plot no.685 recorded in the name of Prabhat Kumar Gupta. That plot according to the petitioner which is in possession of Prabhat Kumar Gupta is situate north-west of new Plot No.688. Respondent no.5 is said to have purchased the said new plot no.688 from Prabhat Kumar Gupta vide registered sale deed dated 2nd March, 2001, got it mutated under JNAC. He alleges that respondent no. 5 by suppression of relevant details required for approval of a building plan got it sanctioned by misleading the JNAC to construct multistoried building over the new plot no.685 of Ward No.2 JNAC located in a 7 ft. wide street called 'Sadhu Path'. Sanction was accorded through building permit no. 28291 dated 21st June, 2013 (Annexure-4). During the course of construction by respondent no.5 it is alleged that he encroached upon the portion of new plot no.688 and whole of new plot no. 683. New Plot no. 688 was recorded in the name of Harmohan Mahato son of Ghasiram Mahto and others published in the record of rights in the year 1995. This petitioner and his wife have purchased 12,142 sq.ft. of land being portion of new plot no.688 through four registered sale deeds dated 24th October, 2002 in respect of two of them, 14th October, 2004 and 31st October, 2006 respectively in respect of rest two. According to this petitioner new Plot no. This petitioner and his wife have purchased 12,142 sq.ft. of land being portion of new plot no.688 through four registered sale deeds dated 24th October, 2002 in respect of two of them, 14th October, 2004 and 31st October, 2006 respectively in respect of rest two. According to this petitioner new Plot no. 688 is carved from revisional survey plot no.1033 recorded in the name of Ghasiram Mahto and petitioner has a rightful succession, title and interest in the remaining 4,550 sq. ft. of the new Plot no.688. On alleged encroachment by respondent no.5 and representation being made by the petitioner a report was called from the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur through letter no.4033 dated 6th December, 2013 (Annexure-6). Pending such enquiry the Circle Officer reported that the construction is being carried out by respondent no.5 over plot no.688 (part) and new plot no.683 vide his letter bearing no.27 dated 3rd January, 2014 (Annexure-8). Circle Officer was again directed to conduct a physical inspection while respondent no.5 was directed to maintain status-quo till the demarcation is done. The Circle Officer, thereafter, has provided a report which is ex-parte through letter no.856 dated 11th June, 2014 showing the locations of new plot no.685 adjacent to Uliyan Main Road contrary to the finally published survey map of Ward No.2, JNAC. Based on this report it is contended that Special Officer has modified the order of status-quo granted earlier through his letter no.1509 dated 1st July, 2014, impugned herein. This has led the petitioner to approach this Court being aggrieved with the action of the respondent authorities of JNAC and the construction being carried out by respondent no.5. 3. Through a supplementary affidavit petitioner has conveyed That Anchal Amin conducted measurement and found that respondent no. 5 has encroached upon plot no.688 belonging to the petitioner which was reported to the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur and to the Additional Collector, Jamshedpur through letter no.2131 dated 12th August, 2015. The report of the Anchal Amin contained in Annexure-14 to the supplementary affidavit states that an inspection of the under-construction house by the respondent no.5 on comparison of the maps of 1934-35 and present survey map of 1970-71, it is found that the construction was being done on plot no.996 (3) new survey plot no. 683 a portion of Plot no.688 having an area of 01.4 decimals. 4. Thereafter, The Special Officer, JNAC through letter bearing no. 683 a portion of Plot no.688 having an area of 01.4 decimals. 4. Thereafter, The Special Officer, JNAC through letter bearing no. 1115 dated 19th May, 2015 (Annexure-15) has once again directed the respondent no.5 (petitioner in other two connected cases) to maintain status-quo in respect of the construction pending re-inquiry. 5. Petitioners in W.P. (C) Nos.2269 of 2014 and 5321 of 2014 are one and the same. In W.P. (C) No. 2269 of 2014 petitioner Manoshi Roy has approached this Court for setting aside the letter bearing memo no. 12 dated 3rd January, 2014 issued by the respondent no.3 - Special Officer, JNAC to the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur – respondent no.4, Where by the petitioner was directed to maintain status-quo in respect of the land in question. It also sought direction upon the respondents to rectify the entry of new plot numbers corresponding to old plot no.996 under Khata No.8 (old) 486 (new), Thana no.1158, Jamshedpur which according to her appears as Plot No.683 in the survey map. It also prayed for direction upon the respondents to take action against some land mafias who are trying to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the property in question by playing fraud. It also prayed for an order of demarcation being plot no.685 (part), old Plot no.996 under Khata no.8 (old) 486 (new) in Mauza Uliyan, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum. As per the case of this petitioner, she is the owner of the land bearing Plot No.685 (part of old plot no.996) under Khata No. 8 (new) 486 (old) Mouza Uliyan, thana no.1158, Jamshedpur through a registered sale deed no. 9207 dated 2.3.2001 from Prabhat Kumar Gupta. She has got the land mutated vide order dated 21st May, 2011 (Annexure-2) and the new corresponding Plot number as per survey map of 1996 and correction slip is plot no.685. She alleges that respondent no. 6 Sanjiv Mahato (petitioner in the first writ petition) has been filing complaints before different State authorities like the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamshedpur; Officer In-charge, Kadma Police Station; Special Officer, JNAC and Circle Officer, Jamshedpur alleging encroachment over the land by the petitioner along with other builders. She alleges that respondent no. 6 Sanjiv Mahato (petitioner in the first writ petition) has been filing complaints before different State authorities like the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamshedpur; Officer In-charge, Kadma Police Station; Special Officer, JNAC and Circle Officer, Jamshedpur alleging encroachment over the land by the petitioner along with other builders. This complaint led to an enquiry by the JNAC in respect of the construction made and finally by the impugned order dated 3rd January, 2014 and order to maintain status-quo was passed against this petitioner which has aggrieved her to approach this Court. This petitioner reiterates that JNAC should rectify the entry of plot numbers on the new map corresponding to old plot numbers to remove any doubt in respect of rightful owner of plot no.685 corresponding to old plot no.996. 6. In the second writ petition being W.P. (C) No.5321 of 2014 of the same petitioner, she is aggrieved by the letter dated 1st August, 2014 issued by the Special Officer, JNAC (Annexure-14) where under she has been directed to maintain status-quo over the land in question. Sequence of most of the facts are also same in the present matter with additional averments on the issue that during pendency of the previous writ petition the order of status-quo was revoked by letter no.1509 dated 1st July, 2014 issued by the respondent Special Officer, JNAC. However, within one month of the revocation, another complaint was filed by certain persons and on such application again the petitioner was directed to maintain status-quo over the land in question vide order dated 1st August, 2014 which is impugned in the present writ application (Annexure-14). Thereafter, a supplementary affidavit has again been filed by the petitioner stating that the respondent-Special Officer, JNAC through another letter no.947 dated 25th April, 2015 has vacated the stay granted on construction over the land pertaining to new plot no.685, old plot no.996 Khata No.486, old Khata no.08, Mouza Uliyan, Thana No.1157, Kadma, Jamshedpur in respect of permit no.28291 dated 21st June, 2013 (petitioner's building plan) on the report of the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur that construction was being carried out on the land of the present petitioner. 7. 7. Respondent-JNAC in its counter affidavit has tried to take through the sequence of facts relevant to sanction of building plan of the petitioner Manoshi Roy in W.P.(C) Nos.2269 of 2014 and 5321 of 2014 and enquiries being made one after the other through the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur on the subject of alleged construction over the adjacent plots. Learned counsel for the JNAC has submitted that the orders of status-quo, its vacation or further stay in respect of construction of building by the petitioner Manoshi Roy have been passed in these circumstances. It is, however, admitted by counsel for the respondent- JNAC that the issue has not yet been finally determined as to whether the construction carried out by the petitioner Manoshi Roy under the permit dated 21st June, 2013 is being carried out on the terms and conditions of the building plan on the respective plots for which it was granted. He is not in a position to state on the basis of the pleadings in the writ petitions that the controversies relating to old and new plot number have been finally resolved in respect of the said building plan which appears to be the bone of contention between the petitioner and the private respondent in these respective writ petitions. 8. The details of the relevant facts pleaded by the parties have been noticed herein above only for the purpose that the question relating to construction and/or any encroachment of another plot in respect of the building permit dated 21st June, 2013 has not yet been finally determined by JNAC, the sanctioning authority. Whether the construction is being carried out on the plot on which it is sanctioned and whether it co relates and corroborates to the old plot under the previous survey map is an issue which requires to be verified by the respondent JNAC. Whether the construction of the petitioner Manoshi Roy as per permit dated 21st June, 2013 is, as a matter of fact, encroaching over any adjacent land of other persons like the petitioner Sanjiv Mahto or not is another aspect. Such things are to be determined by the respondent-JNAC to ensure that the building in question is constructed strictly in accordance with law and as per the building permit. There are reports of Circle Officers, Jamshedpur at different stages which do not seem to have settled the issue till now. 9. Such things are to be determined by the respondent-JNAC to ensure that the building in question is constructed strictly in accordance with law and as per the building permit. There are reports of Circle Officers, Jamshedpur at different stages which do not seem to have settled the issue till now. 9. Be that as it may, it is open for the respondent-JNAC to Under take a fresh inspection of the respective plots in question for coming to a resolution in respect of number and area of the new plots corresponding to the old plots under the previous survey map to finally give a quietus to the controversy relating to construction in respect of building permit dated 21st June, 2013 by the petitioner Manoshi Roy. In the aforesaid exercise, the respondent-JNAC should accord an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in the respective writ petitions and come to a considered finding in accordance with law based on all objective material reports and inspection carried out through the competent authorities. 10. Therefore, these writ petitions are being disposed of with the aforesaid observations to enable the respondent-JNAC to undertake this exercise expeditiously, preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Petition disposed of.