IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
W.P. (C) No. 6312 of 2007
with W.P. (C) No. 6307 of 2007
...
Ainul Hoda ... Petitioner [In W.P. (C No. 6312 of 2007]
Md. Kalamullah Hussain ... Petitioner [In W.P. (C) No. 6307 of 2007]
-V e r s u s-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh.
3. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ramgarh
4. The Circle Officer, Ramgarh.
5. Damodar Valley Corporation, Kolkata ... Respondents [In both cases].
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioners: - M/s. Indrajit Sinha & A. Aditya Advocates. [In both cases]
For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: - Mr. Arvind Kr. Mehta, J.C. to S.C. (L&C) [In both cases]
For the Respondent No. 5 : - Mr. S. B. Gadodia, Sr. Advocate.
& Mr. Tapas Kabiraj, Advocate.
...
7/12.11.2009
Since the issues involved in these writ applications are identical, they are
disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Challenge in these writ applications is to the order passed by the ‘Anchaladhikari’
(Circle Officer), Gola, dated-06.11.2007 annexed as Annexure-6 in W.P. (C) No. 6312 of
2007 and the same order annexed as Annexure-4 in W.P. (C) No. 6307 of 2007, whereby the
Circle Officer has directed both the writ petitioners individually to remove the
encroachments upon the lands mentioned in the aforesaid order.
4. The short question, which is called upon to be addressed, in these writ
applications, is as to whether in exercise of his powers under the Bihar Public Land
Encroachment Act, the Circle Officer has to act upon his own or to be dictated and guided by
the orders of the L.R.D.C. or any other superior Officer.
5. As it appears from the facts of these cases, a proceeding under the Bihar Public
Land Encroachment Act was initiated against the petitioners for the removal of the purported
encroachment upon the lands under reference.
In response to the notices issued to them, the petitioners appeared and had
filed their respective show-cause replies, stating that the proceedings are not maintainable
and are liable to be dropped.
It appears that without considering the objections raised by the petitioners
and taking a decision upon the same, the Anchaladhiari (Circle Officer), had proceeded to
issue the impugned notices directing the petitioners to remove the purported encroachment
with an observation that such a direction has been given under the instructions of the
L.R.D.C.
6. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the impugned
order, as it manifestly indicates, has been passed by the Anchaladhikari (Circle Officer)
without application of his mind and without discussing the grounds of objections as raised by
the petitioners in the individual proceedings. Rather, the concerned Officer appears to have
acted at the behest of his superior in office.
7. Upon reading the impugned orders, I find force in the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for the petitioners. As it appears, the Circle Officer has abdicated his
responsibilities in exercising his power, which has been independently vested in him under
the law.
8. Mr. S. B. Gadodia, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 5, would want to
intervene by claiming that the lands, referred to in both the notices, are part of the lands
which were originally acquired by the State Government and thereafter allotted to the
Respondent-D.V.C. for the purpose of constructing electric sub-station. In fact the possession
of the lands was delivered to the D.V.C. by the State Government pursuant to an Agreement
between the D.V.C. and the State Government upon deposit of the requisite amount of
money made by the D.V.C. It was during this period that the petitioners in both these writ
applications had managed to encroach upon the lands and now have been resisting unduly,
the demands of the Government authorities to secure their eviction from the lands.
Learned counsel argues that in exercise of the power of its writ
jurisdiction, this Court may take notice of the relevant facts, namely, the fact that the lands
after being acquired by the State Government were delivered to the Respondent-D.V.C. and
the lands have been illegally encroached by the several persons including the present
petitioners.
9. In the instant case, the main grievance is that the impugned orders have been
passed without proper adherence to the procedure of law in the context of the Bihar Public
Land Encroachment Act and without affording the petitioners adequate opportunity of being
heard. Such acts cannot be countenanced at all and has to be struck down.
10. In the light of the above discussions, the impugned orders (Annexure-6) and
(Annexure-4) respectively as referred to in the instant writ applications, are hereby set aside.
Both the cases are remitted to the Anchaladhikari (Circle Officer), Gola with a direction to
record a fresh order in Proceedings before him, in accordance with law, within a maximum
period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The final
decision in both the cases shall be taken by the concerned Officer after allowing opportunity
to the petitioners of being heard. The petitioners in both these writ applications are directed
to appear on 20th December, 2009 before the Anchaladhikari (Circle Officer) of the district
concerned.
11. With these observations, both these writ applications [W.P. (C) No. 6312 of 2007
with W.P. (C) No. 6307 of 2007] are disposed of.
12. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the Respondent-State.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)
APK