Surendra Choudhary vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 4617 Jhar

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                       (Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
                      W.P.(C) No. 5062 of 2008
                          ........

Surendra Choudhary                               ..... Petitioner
                            Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors.                .... ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO ............

For the Petitioner : Mr. L.C. N. Sahdeo, Advocate Ms. Sonal Jaiswal, Advocate For the Respondents /State : Mr. Ashish Kumar Shekhar, A.C. to Mr. Suresh Kumar, S.C.(L&C)-II ........

10/06.12.2021.

Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. L.C.N. Sahdeo assisted by Mrs. Sonal Jaiswal has submitted that without initiating any BPLE proceeding, a notice has been issued by the Circle Officer, which has been brought on record as Annexure-1, vide letter no.988 dated 13.08.2008, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to vacate the properties and demolish the constructions made thereon within 24 hours or else the same shall be demolished forcibly and the cost of the same shall be realized by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.10.2008 has granted interim protection in favour of the petitioner, but the respondent authorities have demolished the structure and are making construction over the same land.

Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ashish Kumar Shekhar, A.C. to Mr. Suresh Kumar, S.C.(L&C)-II has submitted that it is not correct that earlier no notice has been issued, rather as a matter of fact, which has been brought on record, the respondent /State has initially initiated BPLE Case No.58/2008 and after due notice, the proceeding was ended and thereafter the letter no.988 dated 13.08.2008 has been issued asking the petitioner to remove the encroachment. When the petitioner did not remove the encroachment within 24 hours of the letter dated 13.08.2008, then only the encroachment has been removed by the State, but that is prior to 24.10.2008, as such, the respondent has not acted against the order dated 24.10.2008, rather on 24.10.2008 there was no structure standing over the

land, rather those had already been removed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. L.C. N. Sahdeo has drawn attention of this court towards the counter affidavit and has submitted that from perusal at paragraph-26, it appears that the respondent / State is of the knowledge that Second Appeal No.415/2004 is pending before this Hon'ble Court, but they did not choose to inquire about the outcome of the said Second Appeal and proceed in a arbitrary manner.

Considering such submissions, since the matter is sub-judiced before this Hon'ble High Court in Second Appeal No.415 / 2004, which was against the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in First Appeal No.05 / 2003 reversing the judgment and decree of the learned trial court passed in Title suit No.16 / 1995, this Court gives liberty to the petitioner to agitate the issue with regard to compensation as well as cost against the State, after the Second Appeal No.415 / 2004 is finally adjudicated by this Court or such dispute is settled by the Apex Court.

Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of with such liberty to the petitioner, to agitate the issue after the outcome of Second Appeal.

All the pending I.As. are hereby closed.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Jay/