Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 141 (JHR)

Ganesh Prasad v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-01-16

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2018
ORDER Rajesh Shankar, J. - Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, has/have already been removed. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned notices issued to the petitioners vide Memo No. 18 dated 9th January, 2018 (Annexure-2 series to the writ petition), whereby the respondent no. 3 has asked the petitioners to vacate the land pertaining to Mouza Bundu, Thana No. 21, Khata No. 44, Plot No. 275, area 1.10 acres and the land pertaining to Khata No. 46, Plot No. 276, area 1.05 acres i.e. total area 2.15 acres. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been in possession of the land in question for about 50 years by virtue of registered sale deeds executed in their favour. However, the respondent authorities have been disturbing them periodically. The petitioners have also filed a suit, being Original Suit No. 14 of 2016, in the court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bermo at Tenughat against the district authorities for declaration of their valid right, title and possession over the land in question. Despite the said fact, the Circle Officer, Petarwar (respondent no. 3) vide impugned notices dated 9th January, 2018 has directed the petitioners to remove the alleged encroachment from the land in question. The respondent no. 3 prior to issuance of impugned notices did not afford any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 4. Learned J.C. to S.C. (L&C) submits that though the petitioners have averred certain factual aspects in the writ petition, yet no supporting document has been annexed with the writ petition to prima facie suggest their title over the land in question. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition. On perusal of the impugned notices dated 9th January, 2018, it appears that the respondent no. 3 has ordered the petitioners to remove the encroachment from the land in question by 16th January, 2018. It further appears that through the said notices the petitioners have not been asked to file their respective replies, rather they have straightway been ordered to remove the alleged encroachment from the land in question. 6. 3 has ordered the petitioners to remove the encroachment from the land in question by 16th January, 2018. It further appears that through the said notices the petitioners have not been asked to file their respective replies, rather they have straightway been ordered to remove the alleged encroachment from the land in question. 6. It is a settled principle of law that in course of any anti-encroachment drive, the provisions of Bihar (now Jharkhand) Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (herein after to be referred as ''the Act'') are required to be followed by the State authorities. There is mandatory requirement of issuance of show cause notice before passing any order against a person for removal of alleged encroachment. 7. Since the impugned notices dated 9th January, 2018 are in the nature of final dispossession of the petitioners from the land in question without affording any opportunity of hearing, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Thus, the impugned notices, contained in Memo No. 18 dated 9th January, 2018 are quashed and set aside. 8. However, the respondent no. 3 - Circle Officer, Petarwar is at liberty to issue fresh show cause notices to the petitioners in terms of Section 3 of the Act and, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, he may pass appropriate order, in accordance with law. 9. The petitioners are also at liberty to produce all the relevant documents with regard to their title and possession over the land in question before the respondent no. 3. 10. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.