Jharkhand High Court: In a petition filed seeking to declare that the respondent authorities did not have any jurisdiction or authority under the law to forcibly and illegally demolish/bulldoze the building premises of the petitioner, Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J., stated that there was no show cause notice or even a proceeding initiated against the petitioner with regard to said dispute. No document was brought on record by way of counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit by the State about the said possession and this clearly established that in absence of any proceeding the demolition order was passed. The Court stated that the action of the authority in demolishing the shops was nothing but totally illegal, arbitrary and whimsical.
Thus, considering that the authority’s action was illegal and violative of all principles of rule of law, the Court directed the respondent authorities to pay Rs. 5,00,000 to the petitioner. The respondent authority was further directed to pay Rs. 25,000 by way of compensation for the mental pain and agony suffered to the petitioner on account of illegal act and high-handedness of the respondent authority.
Background
The petitioner submitted that by terms of registered sale deed dated 5-1-1973, he purchased 5 decimals of lands (‘the lands’) in the Chatra District. The lands were recorded as Gair Mazuruwa Khas in the survey record of rights, and exercising his rights, the ex-landlord granted raiyati settlement in the petitioner’s favour in the year 1948. Accordingly, the petitioner came in possession and paid rent to the ex-landlord and upon vesting the Jamabandi was opened in his name. Petitioner continued as raiyat under the erstwhile State of Bihar on payment of rent against the grant of rent receipts. Petitioner submitted that after purchasing five decimals of land, he applied for mutation of his name and mutation was allowed in his favour.
The petitioner submitted that the Sub Divisional Officer, Chatra, vide order dated 26-8-1988 cancelled the mutation, without any authority or jurisdiction. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, whereby the order dated 26-08-1988 was set aside. Petitioner again started paying rent against the grant of rent receipts and in 1997, he made a pucca construction of five shop rooms fitted with shutters. The constructions made by the petitioner, were based on the building plan sanctioned by the Chatra Municipality.
The petitioner further submitted that on 29-04-2011, the District Administration appeared with the bulldozer and demolished the shops of the petitioner. He submitted that this had happened in absence of any proceedings under law initiated against the petitioner. There was no order or decree of any court of competent jurisdiction or authority constituted under any law authorising the respondents to demolish/bulldoze the constructions made by the petitioner over his raiyati lands. Petitioner submitted he was never given any notice, nor any proceeds was ever initiated against him.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that the supplementary counter affidavit filed on 24-01-2024, it was crystal clear that the Government did not have any record and it was clear that the Government had no record and the order passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector had no jurisdiction. The Court stated that it was crystal clear that there was no document and the mutation order had attained finality by the respondent. The registered deed was also not challenged by any of the party as well as State. Thus, the Court stated that the land in question was in possession and in favour of the petitioner. The documents on record suggested that five shops were constructed after obtaining sanction from the Chatra Municipality.
The Court stated that it was well known that no construction was allowed in absence of any valid right, title and interest. Further, there was no show cause notice or even a proceeding initiated against the petitioner regarding said dispute. No document was brought on record by way of counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit by the State about the said possession and this clearly established that in absence of any proceeding the said order was passed.
The Court stated that since there was an acquisition of land and demolition of shops belonging to the petitioner, without adhering to the established procedure, the petitioner was entitled to have remedy under Article 300A of the Constitution. The Court referred to Dharam Dutt v. Union of India, , and opined that even though the right to property was no longer a fundamental right and was never a natural right, it had to be accepted that without the right to property, other rights become illusory. The protection of Article 300A of the Constitution was available to any person including a legal or juristic person and was not confined only to a citizen.
The Court stated that the action of the authority in demolishing the shops was nothing but totally illegal, arbitrary and whimsical. It was well-settled that the State or its authorities were subject to ‘etat de droit.’ i.e., the State was submitted to the law which implied that all actions of the State or its authority and officials must be carried out subject to the Constitution and within the limits set by the law. The executive or administrative order which involved civil consequences must be made in conformity with the rule of natural justice, which at least required notice and opportunity of hearing to the affected person.
Thus, considering that the authority’s action was illegal and violative of all principles of rule of law, the Court directed the respondent authorities to pay Rs. 5,00,000 to the petitioner. The respondent authority was further directed to pay Rs. 25,000 by way of compensation for the mental pain and agony suffered to the petitioner on account of illegal act and high-handedness of the respondent authority.
[Rajendra Prasad Sahu v. State of Jharkhand, W.P. (C) No. 2628 of 2011, decided on 27-06-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Ayush Aditya, Advocate; Akash Deep, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Manoj Kumar, G.A.-III; Rakesh Kr. Roy, A.C. to G.A.-III.
The post appeared first on .