Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 118 (JHR)

Sunil Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2016-01-18

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2016
ORDER : Seeking restoration of possession of the shop, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. It is stated that the Deputy Commissioner respondent no. 2 settled a piece of land measuring about 96 sq.ft. in favour of the petitioner vide letter dated 17.12.1988. The petitioner installed a photocopier machine in the shop constructed over there. In the year, 2007, BPLE Case No. 107 of 2007 was instituted in which an order was passed for eviction of the petitioner. The petitioner preferred BPLE Appeal No. 48 of 2007-08. Vide order dated 15.10.2007 the respondent no. 2 disposed of the appeal directing the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dalbhum to accept application for renewal of the license if the licensee submits application by 15.11.2007. The renewal was to be granted on payment of double the amount of the ground rent as fine. Subsequently, on the application submitted by the petitioner seeking permission to pay rent from 20012008, vide order dated 21.04.2008 the petitioner was permitted to deposit Rs. 6720/- in the Sub-Divisional Nazarat. The petitioner asserts that on 14.06.2008, the petitioner deposited the said amount against receipt no. 391642 still, the shop of the petitioner was demolished on 05.12.2015. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. Mr. P. P. N. Roy, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the settlement dated 17.12.1988 is a settlement in terms of the Khas Mahal Manual and therefore, the petitioner can be evicted from the said premises only by instituting the proceeding for eviction in the civil court. 5. A perusal of order contained in letter dated 17.12.1988 discloses that the permission to install photocopier machine was granted for one year only. It further stipulated that no permanent construction would be made. Order dated 21.04.2008 also discloses that renewal was for only one year i.e. for 200708. The said order also prohibited permanent construction over the piece of land allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner has not asserted that the license for photocopier machine was renewed for the subsequent years. The petitioner has though, made a statement that he has been paying electricity charges to JUSCO and the last payment was made on 12.12.2015, the petitioner has also failed to asserts that he paid the rent after 2008. The order contained in letter dated 17.12.1988 is not in the nature of a lease granted under Khas Mahal Manual. The petitioner has though, made a statement that he has been paying electricity charges to JUSCO and the last payment was made on 12.12.2015, the petitioner has also failed to asserts that he paid the rent after 2008. The order contained in letter dated 17.12.1988 is not in the nature of a lease granted under Khas Mahal Manual. The permission to the petitioner was on the license basis and order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer also discloses that the renewal has been ordered for only one year. The judgment in “Deba Jyoti Dutta and Ors vs. State of Bihar and Ors” 1988 PLJR 440 and “Tapen Sen vs. the State of Bihar and Others” 1991(2) PLJR 274 , are in the context of lease/renewal of lease. The reliance placed by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner on those judgements is misplaced. The piece of land allotted to the petitioner was in the court compound at Sakchi. From the newspaper report produced by the petitioner, it is apparent that notice was issued to the petitioner and other encroachers. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents should have instituted proceeding in the civil court for eviction of the petitioner, is liable to be rejected. In view of the nature of the settlement and the order of renewal passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the petitioner has rightly been evicted by giving notice for eviction. 6. Considering the facts disclosed in the writ petition, no order for restoration of possession can be passed in the present proceeding. I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.