Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1666 (JHR)

Md. Nezamuddin v. State of Jharkhand

2016-12-14

D.N.PATEL, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2016
JUDGMENT : D.N. Patel, J. I.A. No.8111 of 2016 This interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 15 days in preferring the instant appeal. 2. Having heard learned counsel and looking to the reasons stated in para 4 of the interlocutory application, there are reasonable reasons for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. 3. Accordingly, I.A. No. 8111 of 2016 is allowed and delay in filing the instant appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No.554 of 2016 4. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.4366 of 2004 dated 29th September, 2016, whereby the petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed and hence, the original petitioner has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 5. Having heard learned counsels for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the present appellant (original petitioner) is having a small shop nearby Chitranjan Locomotive Works. The said land was acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the ingress and egress at the Chitranjan Locomotive Works. It further appears that without any agreement, this appellant has not only occupied the land, but, also constructed a shop. Thus, there is no licence for running a shop in the favour of this appellant, nor there is any permission given by any competent authority for construction of the shop. No legal right is also visited into the appellant to continue possession of the land in question. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant. 6. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Olga Tellis Vs Bombay Municipal Corporation reported in (1985) 3 SCC 545 and it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the removal of this appellant should be in accordance with law looking to the facts of the present case. Absolutely, without any licence in favour of this appellant, the land has been acquired and without any approval of the plan, the construction of the shop has also been made. Thus, on a public premises, there is a construction of the shop by this appellant since 2001. Absolutely, without any licence in favour of this appellant, the land has been acquired and without any approval of the plan, the construction of the shop has also been made. Thus, on a public premises, there is a construction of the shop by this appellant since 2001. Such type of illegal occupants are liable to pay rent which will be decided by the Railways authorities and this appellant shall also be liable to make payment of such rent. 7. Counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ratnabhai Sayeed & Ors Vs. Shirdi Nagar Panchayat and anr reported in (2016) 4 SCC 631 especially in paragraphs 62 to 68, but, the ratio decided, in this case, is not applicable to this case, as, looking to the peculiar facts of the present case it appears that; (a) There is no licence in favour of this appellant for allotment of the land. (b) There is no approval of the plan of construction of the shop. (c) On a public land, the shop has been constructed without anybody's permission. (d) Monthly rent has also not been paid by this illegal occupant to anyone. (e) Thus, the appellant appears to be a strong-headed person who is capable to occupy any public land and that too, he has all daring to construct a shop upon the public land without any approval of the plan. (f) To such type of appellant no sympathy can be shown by this Court, as, he has no respect for the law and order, nor towards the Justice Delivery System of this country. Railways should recover from such type of absolutely illegal occupants, all the expenditure for demolition of the shop and, the economic rent for illegal occupancy of the land. 8. Thus, there is no error committed by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed with a cost of Rs.10000/-. This amount will be deposited by the appellant through cheque/draft favouring 'Advocates' Association Welfare and Development Fund, Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi' within ten weeks from today. 9. Registrar General of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the President and the Secretary of the Advocates' Association, Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi. 10. This amount will be deposited by the appellant through cheque/draft favouring 'Advocates' Association Welfare and Development Fund, Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi' within ten weeks from today. 9. Registrar General of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the President and the Secretary of the Advocates' Association, Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi. 10. In view of the final order passed in this Letters Patent Appeal, I.A. N.8117 of 2016 also stands disposed of.