Jharkhand High Court
Pratap Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 July, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:20658
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 3511 of 2022
Pratap Singh, S/o Shibu Singh, R/o Village & PO-Chaulibasa, PS-
Chowka, District-Seraikella-Kharsawan ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Circle Officer, Chandil, Seraikella-Kharsawan
... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate
Mr. Siddharth Jain, Advocate
Mr. Manmohit Bhalla, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Amitesh Kr Geasen, AC to AAG-IA
-----
06/28.07.2025 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing
the notice dated 29.06.2021 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition)
issued by the respondent no. 2 - the Circle Officer, Chandil to the
petitioner under Section 3 of the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Public Land
Encroachment Act, 1956 in Encroachment Case No. 01/2021-22
and for dropping the proceeding initiated against him in connection
with the said case, whereby he has been held responsible for
continuance of encroachment upon the public land as defined
under Section 2(2) of the said Act. Further prayer has been made
for quashing the notice as contained in memo no. 405 dated
28.05.2021 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), whereby the
petitioner has been informed that he has encroached the land of
Primary Health Centre, Chaulibasa. The petitioner has also prayed
for issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 2 to record the
name of the petitioner in Register-II adhering to the order dated
11.12.1989 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Seraikella
in Rent Fixation Case No. 03 of 1989 (Annexure-4 to the writ
petition). The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of direction
upon the respondent no. 2 to accept payment of rent as per the
order dated 11.12.1989 passed by the L.R.D.C, Seraikella.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has the right, title and possession over the land
appertaining to Plot Nos. 568, 570, 451 & 453 under Khata No. 237,
measuring an area of 1.44 acres and Plot No. 569, Khata No. 238,
measuring an area of 0.22 acre (Total 1.66 acres) of Mouza-
Chaulibasa, PS-Chandil, District-Seraikella-Kharsawan as he is the
legal heir of Shibu Singh, who had filed Title Suit No. 24/1983 in
the court of Munsif, Seraikella against the State of Bihar for
declaration of right, title, interest and confirmation of possession
over the said land.
3. The suit was allowed in favour of Shibu Singh vide
judgment and decree dated 15.07.1985 and 31.07.1985
respectively. Being aggrieved with the said judgment and decree,
the State of Bihar preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No.
24/1985 before the Addl. District Judge, Chaibasa which was
dismissed vide order dated 14.04.1988.
4. Thereafter, rent fixation case being Rent Fixation Case
No. 03/1989 was filed by father of the petitioner before Land
Reforms Deputy Collector, Seraikella and vide order dated
11.12.1989, the said authority fixed the rent of the said lands
issuing rent roll of the same.
5. However, despite the aforesaid order of the Land
Reforms Deputy Collector, Seraikella, neither the name of the
petitioner or his farther was entered in Register-II nor rent was
accepted from the petitioner with respect to the said land. In the
meantime, the petitioner sold certain portions of the said land to
several persons. The purchasers of the land applied for mutation in
their favour, which was registered as Misc. Case no. 05/2015-16
wherein vide order dated 19.09.2015, the respondent no. 2 issued
notices to all the purchasers for production of the documents.
Pursuant to the said order, the purchasers produced the relevant
documents before the respondent no. 2, who sent the records of
the said case to the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chandil for
fixing the rent.
6. Subsequently, legal opinion was obtained and vide
letter no. 125 dated 23.05.2016, the Land Reforms Deputy
Collector, Seraikella directed the respondent no. 2 to rectify the
errors found in the records of the said case. In the meantime, the
respondent authorities forcefully took possession of certain portion
of the petitioner's land for construction of Primary Health Centre at
Chaulibasa without following due procedure of law and without
making any payment of compensation. Moreover, the respondent
no. 2, without mentioning any details, served notices upon the
petitioner on 28.05.2021 and 29.06.2021. The petitioner filed
replies to the said notices on 03.06.2021 and 09.07.2021
respectively stating all the facts, however, all went in vain. Under
the said compelling circumstance, the petitioner has filed the
present writ petition.
7. Mr. Amitesh Kumar Geasen, AC to AAG-IA appearing on
behalf of the respondents, submits that the aforesaid factual plea
taken by the petitioner is required to be considered by the
respondent no. 2 in the pending proceeding i.e., Encroachment
Case No. 01/2021-22 as the petitioner has primarily challenged the
notice dated 29.06.2021 issued under Section 3 of the Act, 1956 by
the respondent no. 2 in the said encroachment case.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has not yet received any final order passed by the
respondent no. 2 under Section 6 of the said Act in the said land
encroachment proceeding.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering that the petitioner has primarily challenged the
impugned notice dated 29.06.2021 issued in Encroachment Case
No. 01/2021-22 under Section 3 of the Act, 1956 and the aforesaid
plea taken in the writ petition is required to be factually examined
by the competent authority i.e., the respondent no. 2, the petitioner
is directed to file a detailed response to the aforesaid notice by
18.08.2025. On receipt of the said reply and on consideration of the
same, the respondent no. 2 shall proceed further in accordance
with the procedure prescribed in the said Act and shall pass an
appropriate order within four weeks thereafter.
10. Till the final order is passed by the respondent no. 2 in
Encroachment Case No. 01/2021-22, the petitioner shall not be
dispossessed from the land in question.
11. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with
aforesaid direction.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Manish
