Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 222 (JHR)

Anil Kumar Singh v. The State Of Jharkhand

2017-02-02

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2017
ORDER Mr. Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. – Surviving defect is ignored on the submission of the counsel for the petitioners that certified copy of the impugned Annexure-4 has not been made available. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the State. 3. Being aggrieved by the order dated 14.12.2016 passed in B.P.L.E. Case No. 139/2016 by the Respondent No. 2 Collector - cum - Divisional Forest Officer, Bokaro Forest Division, Bokaro directing them to remove the encroachment over plot no. 5249 of Kandra Mauza, Thana Chas, Thana No. 51 over an area of 5.19 acre within a period of 14 days, petitioners have approached this Court in the present writ application alleging lack of sufficient opportunity to defend and other grounds on merits as well. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondent State however submits that the order impugned is appeal-able under the provisions of Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (Now Jharkhand) under section 11 where all such grounds can be taken by the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that execution of the order has been carried out partially and boundary wall of the petitioners has been demolished; petitioners may be granted interim protection for sometime till they are able to invoke appellate remedy. 6. Having considered the submissions of the parties in the light of the relevant facts on record, this Court at this stage, is not inclined to enter into the merits of the case due to availability of alternative statutory remedy of appeal. Petitioners are relegated to pursue the appellate remedy within a period of two weeks. In case appeal is preferred within a period of two weeks from today, question of delay would be considered sympathetically by the Appellate Court in view of the fact that petitioners were pursuing their remedy before this court. For the period of two weeks from today, Respondent will not take any coercive steps pursuant to the impugned order dated 14.12.2016 passed in B.P.L.E. Case No. 139/2016. It is up to the petitioners thereafter to seek interim protection from the Appellate Court. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.