Jharkhand High Court in Rajendra Nath Mahto vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. [31.01.2018]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND

WP(C) No. 1833 of 2016

Decided On: 31.01.2018

Appellants: Rajendra Nath Mahto

Vs.

Respondent: The State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram: Rajesh Shankar, J.

Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Rajesh Lala and Arpit Kumar
For Respondents/Defendant: Kanchan Kumari

ORDER

Rajesh Shankar, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 16.10.2015 passed in Encroachment Case No. 3 of 2014-15 by the Circle Officer, Chas (Bokaro), whereby the application dated 27.6.2014 filed by the petitioner under Bihar (now Jharkhand) Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 against the respondent Nos. 4 to 19 has been dismissed. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 16.2.2016/23.2.2016 passed by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Bokaro, whereby the Encroachment Appeal No. 38 of 2016 filed against the order dated 16.10.2015 in Encroachment Case No. 3 of 2014-15 has been rejected. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the land under Plot No. 69, Khata No. 67 of Mouza-Mamarkudar, Thana No. 92, Area 62 decimals at Chas, District-Bokaro (hereinafter referred to as "the said land") is a Government land and is recorded as Gair Abad Malik in the Khatian of the year 1925. The petitioner being a public spirited person filed an application dated 27.6.2014 before the Deputy Collector Land Reform (DCLR), Chas, Bokaro and requested for removing the encroachment made by the respondent Nos. 4 to 19 over the said land alleging that the same is a Government/Public Land. On the basis of the petitioner's application, the DCLR, Chas, Bokaro vide his Letter No. 491 dated 24.7.2014, directed the Circle Officer, Chas to take action in accordance with law after due inquiry, who vide order dated 12.8.2014 called for a report from Halka Karamchari/Circle Inspector. The Circle Inspector submitted his report stating that the land is recorded as Gair Abad Khata and recommended for initiation of encroachment case against the respondent Nos. 4 to 19 and accordingly, Encroachment Case No. 3 of 2014-15 was registered and notices were issued to the respondent Nos. 4 to 19, who submitted their reply stating that the land was settled by the ex-landlord in favour of their great grandmother vide unregistered Jothe Patta dated 7.1.1940 and on a part of which, she constructed residential house whereas the rest land was used for growing vegetables. The respondent Nos. 4 to 19 further contended that after the death of the settlee, they came in possession of the land in question. The Circle Officer, Chas rejected the application of the petitioner on the basis of the show-cause reply of the respondent Nos. 4 to 19 and also the opinion of the Government Pleader. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed Encroachment Appeal No. 38 of 2014-15, but the same was not entertained by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Bokaro on the ground that no public interest is involved in the said appeal.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the show-cause reply of the respondent Nos. 4 to 19 was not served to him to explain the ground taken in the same. The Circle Officer, Chas passed the impugned order dated 16.10.2015 without hearing the petitioner, only putting reliance on the show-cause reply of the respondent Nos. 4 to 19 and the opinion of the Government Pleader. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also submitted that old Khatian of the land has not been considered, wherein the said land has been recorded as Government/public land. The authorities failed to appreciate the fact that no rent receipt has ever been issued by the State Government in favour of the respondent Nos. 4 to 19. The Circle Officer also did not consider the report of the Halka Karamchari who specifically mentioned that the said land is recorded as Gair Abad Khata Land. It is further submitted that the said land was a Government land and as such, the Zamindar had no authority to settle the said land by Jothe Patta dated 7.1.1940 in favour of Rangi Mahatwain and thereafter to issue frivolous rent receipt in her favour. It is finally submitted that the State was never called upon to file any formal reply by the State authorities.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the said land is recorded as Gair Abad Malik in last C.S. record of 1925. It is further submitted that the impugned orders have been passed by the respondent authorities after taking into consideration the documents available on record and as such, the same require no interference. It is also submitted that the Circle Officer, Chas has passed the order after complying the principles of natural justice, thus the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

4. In the case of "Govt. of A.P. vs. Thummala Krishna Rao" reported in AIR 1982 SC 1081, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:--

8. The view of the Division Bench that the summary remedy provided for by S. 6 cannot be resorted to unless the alleged encroachment is of "a very recent origin", cannot be stretched too far. That was also the view taken by the learned Single Judge himself in another case which is reported in Mehrunnissa Begum vs. State of A.P., (1970) 1 Andh LT 88 which was affirmed by a Division Bench (1971) 1 Andh LT 292. It is not the duration, short or long, of encroachment that is conclusive of the question whether the summary remedy prescribed by the Act can be put into operation for evicting a person. What is relevant for the decision of that question is more the nature of the property on which the encroachment is alleged to have been committed and the consideration whether the claim of the occupant is bona fide. Facts which raise a bona fide dispute of title between the Government and the occupant must be adjudicated upon by the ordinary courts of law. The Government cannot decide such questions unilaterally in its own favour and evict any person summarily on the basis of such decision. But duration of occupation is relevant in the sense that a person who is in occupation of a property openly for an appreciable length of time can be taken, prima facie, to have a bona fide claim to the property requiring an impartial adjudication according to the established procedure of law.

5. Further, in the case of "Smt. Rekha Singh & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (1992) 2 PLJR 854, a Division Bench of this Court held thus:--

8. It has been well settled by now that the summary remedy for eviction under the Act can be resorted to by the Government only against the persons who are in unauthorised occupation of any land which is "the property of Government". If there is a bona fide dispute regarding the title of the Government to any property, the Government cannot take unilateral decision in its own favour that the property belongs to it, and, on the basis of such decision take recourse to the summary remedy provided for evicting the person who is in possession of the property under a bona fide claim or title.

9. In the instant case, unquestionably, the petitioners have a bona fide claim to litigate and they cannot be evicted save by the due process of law. The summary remedy prescribed under the Act is not the kind of legal process which is suited to an adjudication of complicated questions of title. That procedure is, therefore, not the due process for evicting the petitioners.

10. The facts which raise a bona fide dispute of title between the Government and the occupant must be adjudicated upon by the ordinary course of law. The Government cannot decide such questions unilaterally in its own favour and evict any person summarily on the basis of such decision. But duration of occupation is relevant in the sense that a person who is in occupation of a property for a considerable length of time can be taken, prima facie, to have a bona fide claim to the property requiring an impartial adjudication according to the established procedure of law.

6. The purpose of introduction of Bihar (now Jharkhand) Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 is removal of any encroachment from public land for which a summary proceeding is required to be followed to remove the encroachment without undue delay. Thus, the authority is required to proceed under the Act only when it prima facie appears that a public land has been encroached. However, in the present case, there appears to be a dispute of title between the respondent Nos. 4 to 19 and the Government, as has been claimed by the third party i.e., the petitioner for which the proper course is to get it adjudicated by the competent civil court where both the side will have opportunity to adduce respective evidences. Though the duration of encroachment is not conclusive to decide the encroachment proceeding, however, if a person is in possession of a land for an appreciable length of time, it can prima facie be taken as a claim over to the property requiring an impartial adjudication according to the established procedure of law. In the present case, the claim of the respondent Nos. 4 to 19 as evident from the order of the Circle Officer, Chas, Bokaro that the land was settled by the ex-landlord in favour of their predecessor-in-interest and since then, the said land is in their possession. The procedure for cancellation of settlement has been delineated under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and without following that procedure, no settlee can be evicted from a settled land. The Government Pleader, in his opinion has confirmed the possession of the respondent Nos. 4 to 19 upon the said land. In the new Survey also, the said land has been recorded in the name of the respondent Nos. 4 to 19. The claim of the petitioner, who is a third party is that no rent receipt for the said land is being issued in favour of the respondent Nos. 4 to 19. The said fact also would not change the situation as it is a settled law that mutation neither confers or extinguishes title of any person upon the land.

7. In the case of "Municipal Corpn., Aurangabad vs. State of Maharashtra", reported in (2015) 16 SCC 689, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:--

13. It is settled that mutation does not confer any right and title in favour of any one or other, nor cancellation of mutation extinguishes the right and title of the rightful owner. Normally, the mutation is recorded on the basis of the possession of the land for the purposes of collecting revenue.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has put reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Jagpal Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors." reported in 2016 (3) JLJR (SC) 321 which reads as follows:--

22. Before parting with this case we give directions to all the State Governments in the country that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorized occupants of Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/Poramboke/Shamlat land and these must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the village. For this purpose the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/Union Territories in India are directed to do the needful, taking the help of other senior officers of the Governments. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal occupant, after giving him a show cause notice and a brief hearing. Long duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in making constructions thereon or political connections must not be treated as a justification for condoning this illegal act or for regularizing the illegal possession. Regularization should only be permitted in exceptional cases e.g. where lease has been granted under some Government notification to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land.

9. In the case of "Jagpal Singh" (supra), an application was filed under Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, for eviction from the land recorded as village pond which was being used by the cattle of the village for drinking and bathing. In that case, the Collector, Patiala directed to recover the cost of the land from the illegal occupants. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after taking into consideration the fact of the case, directed all the State Governments to prepare schemes for eviction of illegal occupants of Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/Poramboke/Shamlat land and directed that the regularization of that land shall only be done in exceptional circumstances. The fact of the present case is entirely different from the case cited by the petitioner. In the present case, the petitioner failed to prove before the courts below that the respondent Nos. 4 to 19 are in illegal possession of land, rather as per the impugned order dated 16.10.2015, the respondent Nos. 4 to 19 appear to have produced sufficient documents before the Circle Officer, Chas, Bokaro in support of their claim. The petitioner has also failed to bring on record any material to suggest that the said land was ever used for any public purpose. For the reasons as aforesaid, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed. However, it is clarified clear that observation made in this case is confined to the encroachment proceeding initiated against the respondent Nos. 4 to 19 at the instance of the petitioner and it will not in any manner affect the title of any person including the Government over the said land and the affected party is at liberty to take appropriate recourse in accordance with law, if so advised.

Bhola Saw and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors [21.12.2012]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P. (C) No. 765 of 2008

with

W.P.(C) No. 865 of 2008

with

W.P.(C) No. 877 of 2008

with

W.P.(C) No. 878 of 2008

with

W.P.(C) No. 880 of 2008

with

W.P.(C) No. 867 of 2008

---
Bhola Saw (WPC 765/08)
Enayatullah (WPC 865/08)
Shafiullah (WPC 877/08)
Mazhar Alam (WPC 878/08)
Bishndeo Ram (WPC 880/08)
Dinanath Mahto (WPC 867/08) --- --- --- ---- Petitioners

Versus

The State of Jharkhand & others (all cases) --- Respondents

---

CORAM: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh

For the Petitioners: Mr. Rohit Roy, Advocate
For the State: JC to SC (L&C)
---

05/ 21.12.2012 

These petitioners have come before this Court being aggrieved by the action of the respondents threatening demolition of their residential houses standing on a portion of Khata no. 471, plot no. 2347, village Chitrapur, District- Ramgarh, which according to them, is being made without resorting to any proceeding whatsoever or any order from any competent authority.

2. Petitioner Bhola Saw in WPC No. 765/08 and Mazhar Alam in WPC No. 878/08 are the descendants of Uttim Sahu and Badruddin Hasan @ Sheikh Badruddin Hasan respectively who claim to be settled 0.10 acres and 0.54 acres of land, by the Manager of Ramgarh Estate on payment of proper salami, in the year 1945 and 1941 respectively in the said plot being plot no. 2347 Khata No. 471 village Chitrapur. Petitioners Enayatullah in WPC No. 865/08, Shafiullah in WPC No. 877/08, Bishndeo Ram in WPC No. 880/08 and Dinanath Mahto in WPC No. 867/08 have been sold certain portions of land by the petitioner Mazhar Alam and his brother Zafar Alam in the year 1999.

3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the plot no. 2347 in khata no. 471 village Chitrapur, thana Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh comprises 6.06 acres of Gairmajurua Khas land of Ex-landlord i.e. Ramgarh Estate. As stated herein above, Badruddin Hasan, father of Mazhar Alam and Uttim Sahu, father of Bhola Saw, were settled 0.54 and .10 decimals of land respectively by the Ex-landlord in the year 1941 and 1945 respectively. The annual rent was also fixed thereupon and it is claimed that the predecessor of these petitioners came into possession of the respective areas of the land settled in their favour by the Ex-landlord. It is further stated that after coming into force of Bihar Land Reforms Act, a demand was opened in the name of Badruddin Hasan and Uttim Sahu in Register-II and rent receipts were granted to them respectively from 1956 onwards. Badruddin Hasan had two sons namely Mazhar Alam, who is petitioner in WPC No. 878/08 and Zafar Alam and they are still paying rent to the State over the aforementioned land. Similarly,  rent have also been regularly paid by the predecessor of Bhola Saw and Bhola Saw himself after opening of the demand. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner Mazhar Alam that a proceeding was initiated for cancellation of the rent receipts at the instance of one Md. Shibli in the year 1959 itself and by order dated 8th April 1959, the Additional Collector, Ramgarh recorded that the rent receipt cannot be cancelled which is annexure-4 to the WPC No. 878/08. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner Mazhar Alam that Anchal Adhikari has issued four Basgeet Parchas under the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Land Act bearing case nos. 1/78-79, 2/78-79, 3/78-79 and 4/78-79 with respect to 9 decimal, 5 decimal, 9 decimal and 9 decimal of land respectively of plot no. 2347 khata no. 471 in respect of four landless persons. Counsel for the petitioner Mazhar Alam submits that once again, recommendation was made by the Anchal Adhikari for cancellation of Jamabandi running in the name of Badruddin Hasan and others with respect to the same plot and case no. 2/93-94/27/93-94 was initiated in which the learned Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, after perusing the entire documents of the affected parties, rejected the recommendation of the Anchal Adhikari, Ramgarh and confirmed the Jamabandi of Badruddin Hasan (Annexure-6 to WPC No. 878/08). According to the petitioner-Mazhar Alam, by various sale deeds, he and his brother Zafar Alam transferred 10 ½ decimals of said land to the various persons in the year 1999 who are also aggrieved and preferred the instant writ applications which are being heard and decided today, as indicated herein above by the Petitioners Enayatullah, Shafiullah, Bishndeo Ram and Dinanath Mahto respectively. It is the categorical case of these petitioners that before threatening to demolish houses and structures belonging to these petitioners, no proceeding under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act has been initiated and no order has been passed by any competent authority to carry out such demolition. Therefore, the impugned action are wholly illegal, arbitrary and in teeth of the well settled law that even an encroachment over the public land, cannot be removed except by the process of law as per the law of the land which, in this case, is governed by the Bihar Land Encroachment Act, 1956, if at all.

4. Respondent State have appeared and filed their counter affidavit in each of the respective cases. Their common case is that the petitioners have claimed settlement of their land on the basis of Sada Hukumnama followed by possession and issuance of rent receipt by the then Ramgarh Estate. It is further submitted on their behalf that the said piece of land being area of 6.06 acres of land is recorded in plot no. 2347 khata no. 471 as Gairmajurua Khas land of Exlandlord. The said land was notified as Bazar and even in Survey Map of 1909-10, the land is notified as Bazar and the land is entered as Sairat in Sairat Register. The sairat was previously under the jurisdiction of Anchal Office which has been transferred to Bazar Samittee which has constructed various structures and market shades for local traders. The lands have been usurped through subterfuge and encroached by these petitioners. Respondents have raised a question that the settlement of the land in question said to have been made by the erstwhile landlord is illegal. However, from the submission of the respondents and the averments made in the counter affidavit, it is not borne out that no proceeding under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act was ever initiated against these petitioners either against Bhola Saw, who claims to be descendants of Uttim Sahu who claimed settlement from the Ex-landlord and the petitioner-Mazhar Alam, descendant of Badruddin Hasan who also claimed settlement from the Ex-landlord. The rest of the four petitioners are previously transferee from the petitioner Mazhar Alam and his brother Zafar Alam of the plots settled in their name. Respondents although have referred to the statements made in para-17 of their counter affidavit in respect of another writ petition, but from the order annexed through I.A. No. 3555/08 in WPC No. 878/08 i.e. appellate order passed in Land Encroachment Case No. 38 of 2008 it appears that the said proceedings were initiated in respect of other person Yshrabi Fatima & others vs. State. Counter affidavit of the respondents is silent in respect of the specific statement made by the petitioners that no BPLE proceedings were initiated against these petitioners.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the relevant materials on record. From the facts narrated herein above, it is not in dispute that pursuant to some settlement made by the Ex-landlord, a demand was opened in the name of the ancestor of the petitioner-Bhola Saw and Mazhar Alam in the year 1946 after coming into force of Bihar Land Reforms Act and they have been continuously paying rent thereof. Proceedings were initiated for cancellation of jamabandi in respect of the land in question in the name of Badruddin Hasan and Uttim Sahu in the year 1994 which were however rejected by the order of the Land Reform Deputy Collector. These petitioners have continued to be in possession over the said piece of land which is described as Shariat by the respondents. However, from the facts which have been narrated herein above, it is obvious that no proceeding under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 has ever been initiated against these petitioners or transferee from the petitioner-Mazhar Alam, as named herein above, for eviction from the land in question. It is well settled that in case of land being in the nature of public land, an order of eviction against the unauthorized occupant can be passed in a manner prescribed under the Act of 1956 after giving due notice and opportunity to the occupant to defend himself. Respondents appear to have taken steps by threatening the petitioners with demolition of their structures and houses existing over the land in question which the petitioners claim. The petitioners had therefore come before this court in anticipated action against the threatened breach of their rights.

6. In these facts and circumstances, it is observed that the respondents if at all are inclined to initiate proceeding affecting these petitioners, that can only be done in accordance with law, by initiating proceeding under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 and after giving proper show-cause and notice to each of the affected persons. In these circumstances, respondents are restrained from evicting these petitioners without resorting to any proceeding under the BPLE Act.

Writ petitions are accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms. I.A. No. 3555/2008 in WPC No. 878/08 also stands disposed of.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)

Ranjeet/

Source:
http://jhr.nic.in/hcjudge/data/50-765-2008-21122012.pdf

Jharkhand HC: Court On Its Own Motion vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(PIL) No. 1076 of 2011

with

W.P.(PIL) No. 1783 of 2011

Court on its own Motion (Petitioner) 
Versus 
State of Jharkhand & Ors. (Respondents)

------

CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha,Amicus Curiae

For the Respondent State : Mr. R.R.Mishra, G.P.II

For the Respondent CCL-BCCL: Mr. A.K.Mehta

For the Respondent HEC-BSL-SAIL : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan

------

Order No. 16 Dated 12th July, 2011 W.P.(PIL) No. 1076 of 2011

1. Today a detailed affidavit has been submitted by the State Government after obtaining factual report from all Deputy Commissioner of respective districts and in this report it has been disclosed that there are 24 districts in the State of Jharkhand and the State Government received report from 15 Districts only.

2. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the State will be submitting the supplementary report in respect of removal of the encroachment from the Government land/building/premises, after obtaining the information from the remaining 9 districts.

3. For the Ranchi city, only it has been stated that from July, 2010 till 25.06.2011 encroachments from 32 places have been removed. However, total number of encroachments have not been given for the city of Ranchi, therefore, the information is not complete. It was expected that name of the places, if that was sufficient, should have been given from where the encroachments have been removed in the city of Ranchi.

4. Following is the position of removal of encroachments district wise :-

Sl. No.	District	Encroachments	Encroachments Removed
1.	Simdega	511	511
2.	West Singhbhum	1046	975 (Removal of encroachment from 71 places in progress).
3.	Gumla	No figure	18
4.	Ramgarh	No figure	708 (Ramgarh Circle) 27 (Patratu Circle) 1.54 Acres of land in Gola Circle. 7.88 Acres of land in Mandu Circle.
5.	Saraikella- Kharsawan	No figure	No figure
6.	East Singhbhum	No. figure	No figure
7.	Palamau		3954 in Medininagar, 3006 Chattarpur and (Removal of encroachment Hussainabad Sub from 948 places in progress). Divisions.
8.	Dhanbad	No figure	78 people/ institutions have been removed.
9.	Sahebganj	No figure	175
10.	Koderma	No figure	831 from both sides of NH-31 along 33 km of length. 200 from Jhumri Tillaiya township.
11.	Bokaro	No figure	477 (Chas) 183 (Chandankiyari) 41 (Jaridih) 23(Bermo) 190 (Petarwar) Pending 1796 from BCCL Area.
12.	Hazaribagh	No figure	257 from town 98 from both sides of NH-33.
13.	Deoghar	No figure	No figure
14.	Godda	No figure	No figure

5. Along with this affidavit, order issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand dated 06.07.2011 has been annexed informing all concerned police officers of the area/circle that it will be their responsibility to see that there should not be any re-encroachment as well as encroachment under Government properties and the matter will be examined periodically and further, any lapses will be found then action will be taken against the concerned officer. These letter have been addressed to all Deputy Commissioners also giving guidelines.

6. From the details mentioned above, it is clear that report from total 15 places have been submitted which also contains no detailed figures. However, the Deputy Commissioners have informed that they are making all efforts to remove the encroachments.

7. Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that there is wide spread complaints with respect to the re-encroachments by the law breakers and, therefore, that fact may be taken note of and State may be directed to submit a detailed report about the allegations of re-encroachments by the law breakers.

8. We direct the State Government to submit the detailed report with respect to the re-encroachments made by these law breakers so that before appointing a Court Commissioner to inspect the entire area and obtaining videography, the State itself may correct, if there is a wrong going on. We are making it clear that all efforts made for cleaning of the cities and towns in the State of Jharkhand should not be ruined by the total inaction or collusion with any of the Government officials so as to deny relief to the law abiding public.

9. The State Government may also state on oath what steps have been taken for the construction of the flats which the State Government itself proposed.

10. Put up this case on 10.08.2011.

W.P.(PIL) No. 1783 of 2011

I.A. No. 1983 of 2011

11. Learned counsel for the applicant wants to withdraw I.A. No. 1983 of 2011 so as to file a separate Public Interest Litigation. The Interlocutory Application is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a separate Public Interest Litigation wherein issue can be examined by the Court as to what public interest is involved in such petition. I.A. No. 1983 of 2011 is dismissed with the liberty aforesaid.

I.A. No. 2043 of 2011

12. Learned counsel for the applicant wants to withdraw I.A. No. 2043 of 2011 so as to file a separate Public Interest Litigation. The Interlocutory Application is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a separate Public Interest Litigation wherein issue can be examined by the Court as to what public interest is involved in such petition. I.A. No. 2043 of 2011 is dismissed with the liberty aforesaid.

Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. (H.E.C. Ltd.)

13. In pursuance of the order dated 04.07.2011, learned counsel for the H.E.C. submitted that there were total six persons in the category of dignitaries as given by the C.B.I. who encroached upon certain premises of the H.E.C. and the notice, as ordered by order dated 04.07.2011 published in the newspaper disclosing the names of six dignitaries. By now all those six persons termed as dignitaries by CBI have vacated the premises of the H.E.C. We appreciate the efforts made by the H.E.C. in taking action against these persons who were termed as dignitaries by the CBI and this is a good example of taking action against the high and mighty persons.

14. Learned counsel for the H.E.C. submitted that there were total 1241 encroachments in the H.E.C. premises and out of which 1088 encroachments have already been removed by now. This effort of H.E.C. indicate that if there is a will then the action can be taken for removal of encroachments to the extent of more than 1000 in number and, therefore, for this also H.E.C. requires appreciation. However, there are six unauthorized occupants in the premises of the H.E.C. for which learned counsel for the H.E.C. submitted that there is a reasonable reason for regularization as they are occupying the premises because they are contract workers and their case is under consideration of the Management for regularization and if it will be found worth regularization, then only the H.E.C. will regularize their possession and not otherwise.

15. Learned counsel for the H.E.C. submitted that approximately 315 acres of land is under encroachment, apart from the properties mentioned above, for which notices have been issued to all persons but because of the festival, date for vacating the land was given 18th July, 2011. Learned counsel further submitted that because of non-delivery of possession of this land on 315 acres, the H.E.C. is not getting the money to the tune of Rs. 111 Crores which the State is agreeable to pay only on the condition that vacant possession is delivered to the State Government. This clearly indicates that a Public Sector Undertaking is suffering still because of the encroachments on the land of the H.E.C. The H.E.C. was revived by the order of the Court in Company Petition and H.E.C. can get then Rs. 111 Crores but H.E.C. as well as State and ultimately the public is yet to get the fruit of that settlement between the Public Sector Undertaking and the State Government. Therefore, we again reiterate that the H.E.C. as well as the State should act fast to avoid further loss to the public Sector Unit and to the public ultimately.

SAIL/BSL

I.A. No. 2089 of 2011

16. Learned counsel for the SAIL-BSL submitted that there were total 18 quarters/bungalows of the SAIL under occupation of unauthorized occupants and in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 04.07.2011 the names of all those persons have been published in the newspapers on 06.07.2011. Out of 18, six persons have vacated the quarters and as per information received just now, one more person has vacated the quarter.

17. Learned counsel for the SAIL-BSL submitted that he is hopeful that all other will vacate the quarters within a few days only. We appreciate the efforts of the SAIL-BSL as well as we also appreciate the gesture shown by the persons in vacating the quarters immediately after the order of this Court.

18. We hope that rest of the persons shall also vacate the quarters of the SAIL. The SAIL may submit affidavit within a week's time about the progress in getting the quarters vacated from the persons whose names published in the newspapers irrespective of the date given in this case.

19. Learned counsel for the SAIL-BSL also submitted a chart which indicates that total cases to evict the unauthorized occupants were 2081 and out of which in 1393 cases, eviction orders were passed and orders in 1343 cases have been executed and encroachments have been removed. Therefore, there are still 50 encroachers against whom the orders have not been executed. We hope that the SAIL authorities will execute those orders and shall get the premises vacated. In another column, it has been disclosed that 224 cases were lodged and in 13 cases eviction orders were passed and 5 have been executed. This was the position as on 26.06.2011, therefore, as on 27.06.2011 there were 8 orders of eviction remained un-executed. We hope that the process of eviction will be expedited by the SAIL in these matters.

20. Learned counsel for the SAIL-BSL pointed out that this Court on 01.04.2011 passed specific order for removal of the encroachments from the premises of the Bokaro Steel Plant.

21. We perused the order dated 01.04.2011 and we may recapitulate again that on 28.02.2011 this Court registered this Public Interest Litigation No. 1076 of 2011 on finding that serious irregularities are being committed by the Ranchi Regional Development Authorities and Ranchi Municipal Corporation in the matter of unauthorized constructions and giving permission contrary to the law and Rules and thereafter, it was noticed that a news item was published in the Times of India that "If you don't have a place to live in, walk into the city of Bokaro and select a piece of land for yourself" and this fact was taken note of by the Division Bench of this Court in March, 2011. Then on 16.03.2011 this was brought to the notice of this Court that in view of the direction given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2011 AIR SCW 990), the State Government is required to prepare an exhaustive scheme for the entire State for removal of the encroachments and on 29.03.2011 the counsel for the BSL (SAIL) informed that process of removal of encroachment is going on from the premises of the B.S.L. and this Court 9 ordered on 29.03.2011 that B.S.L. and the State Government will come out with their proposed action against all those who have alleged to have violated the terms of allotment of land to B.S.L. and so was ordered after taking note of the fact that the B.S.L. itself did not take any step to remove the encroachments from their premises. On 01.04.2011 this Court observed that the State Government and B.S.L. are not only slow but are articulating their submissions before this Court in such a design that the B.S.L. is removing the encroachments, but in fact, they are not removing. This Court observed that "this situation is not satisfactory" and then ordered that affidavit filed by the B.S.L. is not accepted as compliance of the order of this Court. This Court directed the State Government and B.S.L. that they should come out clean. The Court took a strong view and clearly indicated that "If the stand of the authorities continue to be what it is today, then they will be ordered to be proceeded for contempt on the next date of hearing" (Order dated 01.04.2011). Then this Court observed as under "Notwithstanding the aforesaid assurance from the State Government, refusal to remove encroachments in the garb of non assistance by the State Government cannot be appreciated. The allegation that the land has been distributed by the officer to their near and dear would be available to the inferred, and as aforesaid, proceedings will be initiated against the officers of Bokaro Steel Limited". By this order dated 01.04.2011 one I.A. No. 1037 of 2011 filed by the applicants were dismissed.

22. I.A. No. 1037 of 2011 was submitted by 30 persons by stating in para 1 "That the interveners are the residents of Kashmir Colony and Addaquari, Bokaro for taking up their genuine grievance as residents of aforesaid colonies and they apprehend to evident (eviction) from the said colony by the order of this Hon'ble Court without initiating any proceedings or giving any notice by the State". The interveners thereafter stated that on 22.07.2010 there was a meeting between authorities of B.S.L. and representatives of Addaquari and Kashmir Colony with S.D.O. Chas for rehabilitation of 348 families which would be evident from the resolution passed by S.D.O. Chas on 23.07.2010 and copy of this resolution was submitted by those applicants along with I.A. No. 1037 of 2011 as Annexure-1 to the Interlocutory Application.

23. As we have already stated that the said I.A. was rejected by the order dated 01.04.2011 by this Court. These applicants of I.A. No. 1037 of 2011 preferred Special Leave to Appeal (civil) No. 10631 of 2011 before the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble Apex Court passed the following order on 13.04.2011 while disposing of the said S.L.P. No. 10631 of 2011 :-

"We find no merit in this petition. However, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to give time up to 30th June, 2011 to the petitioners to vacate the premises on their individually filing undertakings before the Registry of this Court within two weeks from today. This order would be of no avail to the petitioners if they do not file undertakings before the Registry of this Court, as directed. The special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly".

24. A bare perusal of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 13.04.2011 clearly indicate that the plea of the applicants in I.A. No. 1037 of 2011 was found having no merit by Hon'ble Apex court which has been specifically mentioned in the order by the Supreme Court. Not only this, while disposing of the S.L.P., Hon'ble Supreme Court granted indulgence that the encroachers may vacate the premises by 30the June, 2011 but on their individually filing undertaking before the Registry of Hon'ble Supreme Court within two weeks from the date of order and made it clear that the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 13.04.2011 would be of no avail to the petitioners if they do not file undertaking before the Registry of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as directed in the order dated 13.04.2011. All these facts have been taken note of today again by this Court in continuation of this Court's observations made in order dated 09.06.2011.

25. In continuation to the above, we observe that one another Public Interest Litigation W.P.(PIL) No. 1783 of 2011 is pending wherein specifically the issue of encroachments over the land of four big Public Sector Undertakings namely Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited (H.E.C. Ltd.), Central Coalfields Limited (C.C.L.) Bokaro Steel Limited (B.S.L.) and Bharat Coking Coal Limited (B.C.C.L.) is involved and orders have been passed for removal of encroachments from the premises/properties of those four Public Sector Undertakings. In the said petition W.P.(PIL) No. 1783 of 2011, on 13.06.2011, after considering the contention of the counsel for the SAIL-BSL this Court observed that

" In view of the above reasons, the State is directed to provide adequate support to the B.S.L. so that the order may be implemented and the encroached area may be got vacated and that too without asking any particulars of individual person as it is not necessary that the miscreants will be only persons of that area will be creating problems as the others may also join hands with such miscreants. However, the situation is required to be assessed by the State by having the meeting with the B.S.L. Officers and the resistance which may come in the way of implementing the order is required to be taken care which is the duty of the State. This type of relief is required to be given to all the P.S.Us.(referred above) by the State".

26. The direction issued in the order dated 13.06.2011 in W.P.(PIL) No. 1783 of 2011 is in furtherance to the spirit of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 13.04.2011 wherein when the show cause notice for eviction of the unauthorized occupants was sought to be challenged, it was negatived by the Court and any encroacher could have availed the benefit of decision till 30th June, 2011 upon furnishing the undertaking as ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The process is the same for eviction of all persons and keeping the spirit of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order as well as in view of the order dated 13.06.2011 and particularly, direction given in that order and quoted above, the State Government is required to do its job in the matter of removal of encroachments from the land of the Public Sector Undertakings.

27. We have passed this detailed order only to reiterate that the removal of encroachments from the premises of the Public Sector Undertakings cannot be tolerated because of any procedural defects and because of only raising voice by miscreants ignoring the public interest and national interest for which the Public Sector Units are paying heavily from the tax payers' money and the Government is using the land for implementation of its scheme.

28. We are not going into the details of the events which occurred during the past uptill today as indicated by the SAIL-BSL which only indicate that the parties i.e. B.S.L. and State Government still could not work out how to implement the orders passed by this Court in consonance with the views expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab (Supra) and the order passed by this Court in these two Public Interest Litigations. However, we expect that the process will be completed in no time preferably within the month of July, 2011 itself by the B.S.L. and the State Government. We also, on request of the counsel for the State, want to know the contention of the State for which they may file a counter to the I.A. No. 2089 of 2011 which has been filed by the B.S.L. today.

(Prakash Tatia, A.C.J.)

(Jaya Roy, J.)

Raman/Birendra

http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1475996/

High Court of Jharkhand - State Government is required to prepare an exhaustive Scheme for the entire State for removal of the encroachments

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

W.P. (PIL) No. 1076 OF 2011

Court on its own motion Versus State of Jharkhand & Others

-------
CORAM                                                              HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                                                                            HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.PATEL

For the Appellant/Petitioner                                  Mr. I. Sinha, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent-RRDA                                  Mr. A.K.Singh
For the Respodennt-State                                     Mr. R.R.Mishra, G.P
For the Respondent-RMC                                    M/s. R R. Nath, L.C.N. Shahdeo
For the Respondent-Chamber of Commerce         Mr.Pandey Neeraj Rai
For the Intervenors                                               Mr. M.K.Dey, Sr. Advocate
                                                                            Mr. Sohail Anwer, Snr. Advcate
For M/s Premsons                                                Ms. A.R. Choudhary
---------

05/ 16.3.2011

All Intervention applications filed today are allowed.

In view of the large scale feeling of lawyers representing the parties that they need time for compliance of the orders of this Court, this case is posted on 25.3.2011.

By this time, the concerned lawyers are expressing the view that they will be in a position to file a detailed compliance reports in a chart form, wherein Column no. 1 would contain the gist of the order, Column no.2 would contain the action taken and in Column no.3 would contain the evaluation and follow-up action
taken by the authorities concerned.

The original file containing the orders in relation to the alleged encroachment by M/s Premsons has been submitted by the learned G.P. for perusal of the Court.

It is reported that the Chief Executive Officer of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation has proceeded on leave. He is suffering from an ailment of defect in eye-sight. This may take time to get over. Hence, alternative arrangement is required to be made. The State Government will take necessary steps to post an efficient officer in the Ranchi Municipal Corporation like a one they have posted in the R.R.D.A.

It has been brought to the notice of the Court by the Amicus Curiae, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, that under the orders of the Supreme Court, reported in the matter of Jagpal Singh Versus State of Punjab (2011 AIR SCW 990), the State Government is required to prepare an exhaustive Scheme for the entire State for removal of the encroachments.

The State should take appropriate steps to prepare such a Scheme and submit it to the Court on 1st of April, 2011.

(Bhagwati Prasad,C.J.)

(D.N.Patel,J.)

16.3.2011
dey/SI