Recently, the Jharkhand High Court set aside the eviction notices issued by the Circle Officer, Fatehpur, ruling that the appellant could not be summarily evicted without following due process. The Court held that the eviction was carried out without jurisdiction and violated Article 300A of the Constitution, which protects property rights. It was observed that government authorities could not decide property disputes unilaterally and must follow the due process of law. The Court further imposed a cost of ₹1,00,000 on the State and directed the appellant to be restored to possession.
Brief Facts:
The appellant, challenged the eviction notices issued by the Circle Officer, Fatehpur, regarding Khata No. 65, Plot No. 208 in Mauza Choukunda, Jamtara. The appellant contended that the land had been granted to his grandfather, under the Bhoodan Yagna Scheme in 1957 and that a mutation was duly allowed in 1962-63, with regular rent payments made towards the land. Despite these legal records, the Circle Officer, Fatehpur, issued multiple eviction notices against the appellant, first on 24.12.2019, then on 17.01.2020, and finally on 09.07.2020, claiming that the land was government property and that the appellant was an unauthorised occupant. The appellant challenged these notices through W.P. (C) No. 1979 of 2020, but the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition, leading to the present Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) before the Division Bench.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the eviction notices lacked any legal backing and were issued without jurisdiction. He contended that the Circle Officer had no authority to determine land ownership and that a competent civil court should adjudicate such matters. It was submitted that the appellant’s grandfather had received the land through the Bhoodan Yagna Scheme, a recognised government initiative and that a mutation order from 1962-63 confirmed his lawful ownership. Additionally, the appellant had produced rent receipts and other official documents proving possession of the land for decades. The counsel further submitted that Article 300A of the Constitution of India protects property rights and mandates that no person shall be deprived of their property except by the authority of law. By issuing eviction orders without proper legal proceedings, the respondents had violated the appellant’s constitutional rights. He relied on Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao, which held that a government cannot evict a person without due process if there is a bona fide dispute regarding land ownership.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel for the State, defended the eviction notices, arguing that the Bhoodan Yagna grant was never legally finalised and that there were no valid records of ownership in favour of the appellant. He contended that the land in question remained government property and that the appellant’s rent receipts and other documents were forged. The respondents further argued that since the State had authority over government land, it had the right to remove unauthorised occupants through administrative orders. It was submitted that the mutation order from 1962-63 was incorrect and had no legal effect and that the Circle Officer had the power to rectify such errors and issue eviction notices accordingly.
Observations of the Court:
The court found that the eviction orders were issued without jurisdiction and violated established legal principles of property rights. The Court emphasised that land disputes must be resolved through civil proceedings, not executive action. The judgment reaffirmed that under Article 300A of the Constitution, no person can be deprived of property without following due process.
The Court examined the mutation order from 1962-63, which showed that the appellant’s grandfather had been granted ownership under the Bhoodan Yagna Scheme. Since the mutation was never challenged for over six decades, the Court observed that the appellant had a legitimate claim to the property. The respondents, on the other hand, failed to present any documentary evidence proving that the land remained government property.
The Court further noted that the eviction notices were based on a revenue investigation report, which was prepared without giving the appellant an opportunity to present his case. The principle of natural justice requires that affected persons must be heard before adverse action is taken. Since the appellant was never given a proper hearing, the Court held that the eviction notices were legally unsustainable.
The Court also took serious note of the abuse of power by the Circle Officer. It was emphasized that executive officers do not have the authority to decide land ownership disputes. In the State of Rajasthan v. Padmavati Devi, the Supreme Court ruled that eviction can only be carried out through proper legal proceedings, and the present case followed the same principle.
Additionally, the Court examined whether the rent receipts produced by the appellant were valid. The respondents claimed they were forged, but the Court found that no official inquiry had been conducted to verify their authenticity. The Circle Officer had merely stated that they "did not match records," which the Court deemed an insufficient basis for rejecting decades-old ownership claims. The burden of proof lay on the State to establish its ownership over the land, but the State failed to provide any concrete evidence. The Court concluded that the eviction was illegal, arbitrary, and in clear violation of constitutional rights. The respondents acted in excess of their jurisdiction, and the Circle Officer’s order was set aside as null and void.
The decision of the Court:
The High Court quashed the eviction notices dated 24.12.2019, 17.01.2020, and 09.07.2020, ruling that they were issued without jurisdiction and were null and void. The Court directed the State to restore possession of the land to the appellant if he had already been evicted. Additionally, the State was ordered to pay ₹1,00,000 as costs to the appellant for the illegal eviction and unnecessary litigation.
Case Title: Ganesh Burman @ Ganesh Poddar v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan
Case No.:L.P.A. No. 413 of 2024
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Aditya Kumar, Advocate
Picture Source : https://dp5zphk8udxg9.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/shutterstock_354121799-e1501562485812.jpg