Jharkhand High Court
Prakash Kumar Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 March, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 199 of 2025
Prakash Kumar Mandal ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi
2. Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Dhanbad, through its Marketing
Secretary ..... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 200 of 2025
Rajesh Kumar Gupta ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi
2. Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Dhanbad, through its Marketing
Secretary ..... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 202 of 2025
Gorango Das ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi
2. Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Dhanbad, through its Marketing
Secretary ..... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 203 of 2025
Jamil Akhtar ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi
2. Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Dhanbad, through its Marketing
Secretary ..... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 205 of 2025
Akhtar Hussain ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi
2. Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Dhanbad, through its Marketing
Secretary ..... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 206 of 2025
Md. Hamid Siddiki ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi
1
2. Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Dhanbad, through its Marketing
Secretary ..... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 207 of 2025
Sunil Sharma ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi
2. Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Dhanbad, through its Marketing
Secretary ..... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 218 of 2025
Md. Hasimuddin Ansari ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi
2. Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Dhanbad, through its Marketing
Secretary ..... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 219 of 2025
Md. Soharab Ansari ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi
2. Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Dhanbad, through its Marketing
Secretary ..... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 220 of 2025
Md. Nasiruddin Ansari ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi
2. Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Dhanbad, through its Marketing
Secretary ..... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 222 of 2025
Dinesh Kumar Mandal @ Dinesh Mandal ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi
2. Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Dhanbad, through its Marketing
Secretary ..... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 223 of 2025
2
Usman Ansari ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi
2. Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Dhanbad, through its Marketing
Secretary ..... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 224 of 2025
Md. Mahfuz Alam ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi
2. Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Dhanbad, through its Marketing
Secretary ..... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 230 of 2025
Md. Liyakhat Ansari ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi
2. Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Dhanbad, through its Marketing
Secretary ..... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 234 of 2025
Ayodhya Saw ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi
2. Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Dhanbad, through its Marketing
Secretary ..... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 236 of 2025
Md. Abdul Ansari @ Md. Abdul Gani Ansari ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi
2. Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Dhanbad, through its Marketing
Secretary ..... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 237 of 2025
Israil Ansari ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi
2. Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Dhanbad, through its Marketing
Secretary ..... Respondents
3
With
W.P.(C) No. 242 of 2025
Md. Mubarak Ansari ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi
2. Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Dhanbad, through its Marketing
Secretary ..... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 252 of 2025
Md. Nisar Ahmad ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi
2. Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Dhanbad, through its Marketing
Secretary ..... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 253 of 2025
Alauddin Ansari ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi
2. Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Dhanbad, through its Marketing
Secretary ..... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 255 of 2025
Nitesh Kumar Gupta ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi
2. Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Dhanbad, through its Marketing
Secretary ..... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 256 of 2025
Vinod Prasad ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi
2. Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Dhanbad, through its Marketing
Secretary ..... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 259 of 2025
Md. Sahabuddin Siddique ..... Petitioner
Versus
4
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi
2. Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Dhanbad, through its Marketing
Secretary ..... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 299 of 2025
Md. Aslam Ansari ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi
2. Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Dhanbad, through its Marketing
Secretary ..... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 304 of 2025
Md. Azad Siddiki ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi
2. Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Dhanbad, through its Marketing
Secretary ..... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 312 of 2025
Md. Nasir ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi
2. Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Dhanbad, through its Marketing
Secretary ..... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 445 of 2025
Satyanarayan Saw ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi
2. Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Dhanbad, through its Marketing
Secretary ..... Respondents
-----
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioners: Mr. Indrajit Sinha
Mr. Ankit Vishal
Mr. Sagar Kumar
Ms. Puja Agrawal
For Respondent No.1: Ms. Pinky Tiwary, A.C to A.G
Ms. Rishi Bharti, A.C to A.A.G-III
Ms. Surabhi, A.C to A.A.G-II
Mr. Devesh Krishna, S.C (Mines)-III
Ms. Omiya Anusha, A.C to A.A.G-IA
Mr. Rakesh Kr. Roy, A.C to G.A-III
For Respondent No.2: Mr. Arbind Kumar
-----
04/18.03.2025 The present batch of writ petitions, except W.P.(C) No. 205 of 2025 &
W.P.(C) No. 236 of 2025, have been filed for quashing the respective letters
issued by the Marketing Secretary, Agricultural Produce Market Committee,
Dhanbad (the respondent No.2) to the petitioners directing them to vacate their
respective shops situated at Govindpur Haat, Lal Bazar constructed over the
land appertaining to Khata No. 202, Plot No. 1948, Mouza-Govindpur, P.S-
Govindpur, District-Dhanbad. Further prayer has been made for issuance of
direction upon the respondent No.2 not to dispossess the petitioners from their
respective shops and to immediately refund an amount of Rs.51,790/- deposited
by them as rent of the said shops during the period from April, 2007 to March,
2024 along with 18% GST since the respondent No.2 does not have ownership
of the same.
2. W.P.(C) No. 205 of 2025 & W.P.(C) No. 236 of 2025 have been preferred
for quashing the impugned notices as contained in letter Nos. 81 & 80, both
dated 12.03.2024, whereby the petitioners of the said cases have been directed
to pay the rent for the period from April, 2007 to March, 2024 amounting to
Rs.43,890.00 with 18% GST (total Rs.51,790.00) as well as to vacate their
respective shops allegedly occupied by them illegally.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the land in question is
being used as 'Haat/Bazar' by the vendors of the locality for last 50 years. The
petitioners were also running their respective shops over the said land even
before commencement of the construction of vendor market by the
Agriculture Market Produce Committee, Dhanbad i.e. the respondent No.2 in the
year 2006. After completion of construction work of the vendor market by the
respondent No.2 in the year 2007, the petitioners who were having the shops
over the land in question, were allowed to run the same in the vendor
market and accordingly they were allowed to take over possession of their
respective shops in the said vendor market constructed by the respondent No.2.
The petitioners' possession over the shops in question was well within
the knowledge of the respondent No.2 since 2007 itself, but no proceeding
whatsoever was ever initiated against them by the respondent No.2 for evicting
them from the said shops. However, the respondent No.2 issued the letters
dated 12.03.2024 to the petitioners directing them to deposit an amount of
Rs.51,790/- inclusive of 18% GST within a period of 07 days from the date of
receipt of the said letters with further direction to vacate the respective shops,
failing which eviction case would be instituted against them.
4. The petitioners apprehending dispossession, deposited the
requisitioned amount of Rs.51,790/- with the respondent No.2, which was duly
received. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 issued the letters dated 23.09.2024
to the petitioners to submit the documents regarding allotment of the respective
shops within a period of 07 days from the date of receipt of the said letters, as
during inspection conducted by the said respondent on 10.09.2024, it was
allegedly found that certain shops were encroached by the petitioners.
5. It is further submitted that the petitioners were allowed to take
possession of the respective shops constructed by the respondent No.2 in the
year 2007 and their long and continuous possession over the said shops
were never questioned by the respondent No.2 till the year 2024. However, vide
the impugned letters, the petitioners, except the petitioners of W.P.(C) No. 205
of 2025 & W.P.(C) No. 236 of 2025, have been directed to vacate the respective
shops within three days from the date of receipt of the said letters.
6. It is also urged that the shops in question are the only source of
livelihood of the petitioners, who have been running the same for last 18
years. They have also got electrical connection from the Jharkhand Bijli
Vitran Nigam Ltd. in their respective shops and have been paying electrical bills
regularly. Despite that, the respondent No.2 vide impugned letters has directed
the petitioners to vacate their respective shops within 03 days from the date of
receipt of the same stating that the said shops have been encroached by them
since 2007 and the Agriculture Produce Market Committee has kept the
allotment/transfer of any shop in abeyance, due to pending cases before this
Court.
7. It is further submitted that Title Suit No. 129 of 2016 was filed by one
Damodar Chandrajeu Thakur against the State of Jharkhand including the
respondent No.2 in the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.2,
Dhanbad claiming that the land in question belonged to the deity. The said title
suit was, however, dismissed vide judgment dated 15.06.2019 which was
subsequently challenged by Damodar Chandrajeu Thakur in Civil Appeal No. 164
of 2019 in the Court of the District Judge-XVI, Dhanbad. The said appeal was
allowed vide judgment dated 15.06.2024 observing that Damodar Chandrajeu
Thakur had valid right, title and interest over the land in question. Thereafter,
the respondent No.2 challenged the said judgment before this Court in Second
Appeal No. 146 of 2024, which is still pending adjudication.
8. It is further submitted that the title of the respondent No.2 over the land
in question is 'under a cloud' as the District Judge-XVI, Dhanbad vide the
judgment dated 15.06.2024 has observed that Damodar Chandrajeu Thakur
has valid right, title and interest over the same. The respondent No.2 does not
have any authority/jurisdiction to issue the impugned letters of eviction as it is
not the owner of the land in question where the shops of the petitioners are
situated. The petitioners cannot be evicted from the shops in question till the
dispute regarding the ownership of the said land/shops is decided by this Court
in Second Appeal No. 146 of 2024.
9. It is further contended that the respondent No.2 has not initiated any
proceeding either under the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Public Land Encroachment
Act, 1956 nor has filed any suit for eviction of the petitioners from the shops in
question. The petitioners being in long and continuous possession over the
shops in question cannot forcibly be evicted by the respondent No.2 in arbitrary
manner without initiating any proceeding in accordance with law. The
petitioners cannot be said to be the trespassers/encroachers only because the
respondent No.2 has demanded and accepted the rent for the shops in
question.
10. It is also urged that even a trespasser, who is in established possession
of the property, cannot be forcibly dispossessed by the State authority, who is
not the owner of the property. It is incumbent upon the respondent authority to
issue show cause notices to the petitioners disclosing the circumstances under
which the proposed action is sought to be initiated against them. The
opportunity of hearing given to the affected persons should not be mere empty
formality, rather reasonable opportunity of hearing must be given to
them. The respondent No.2 being the instrumentality of the State, its action or
administrative decision must be subject to the doctrine of equality and fair play.
11. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the
shops in question were constructed in the year 2007, however, allotment
procedure was not finalized due to some reason and the said shops were not
allotted to anyone. In fact, the petitioners were in unauthorized possession of
the respective shops since 2007 without issuance of any allotment letter by the
competent authority. The petitioners were asked to submit allotment letters with
regard to the respective shops, however, they neither submitted the allotment
letters nor vacated the same and as such the impugned letters were issued to
them for vacating the shops in question. Moreover, the respondent No.2 has
given ample opportunity to the petitioners before issuing the impugned letters.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials
available on record.
13. For better appreciation of the facts of the present batch of writ petitions,
a tabular chart is being detailed hereinbelow:-
Case Nos. Impugned Letters Shops in
possession of
the petitioners
W.P.(C). No. 199 of Letter No. 836/Dhanbad dated 02.12.2024 Shop No. 29
W.P.(C). No. 200 of Letter No. 826/Dhanbad dated 02.12.2024 Shop No. 19
W.P.(C). No. 202 of Letter No. 817/Dhanbad dated 02.12.2024 Shop No. 10
W.P.(C). No. 203 of Letter No. 828/Dhanbad dated 02.12.2024 Shop No. 21
W.P.(C). No. 205 of Letter No. 81 dated 12.03.2024 Shop No. 9
W.P.(C). No. 206 of Letter No. 819/Dhanbad dated 02.12.2024 Shop No. 12
W.P.(C). No. 207 of Letter No. 834/Dhanbad dated 02.12.2024 Shop No. 27
W.P.(C). No. 218 of Letter No. 815/Dhanbad dated 02.12.2024 Shop No. 7
W.P.(C). No. 219 of Letter No. 814/Dhanbad dated 02.12.2024 Shop No. 6
W.P.(C). No. 220 of Letter No. 835/Dhanbad dated 02.12.2024 Shop No. 28
W.P.(C). No. 222 of Letter No. 812/Dhanbad dated 02.12.2024 Shop No. 4
W.P.(C). No. 223 of Letter No. 840/Dhanbad dated 02.12.2024 Shop No. 33
W.P.(C). No. 224 of Letter No. 830/Dhanbad dated 02.12.2024 Shop No. 23
W.P.(C). No. 230 of Letter No. 825/Dhanbad dated 02.12.2024 Shop No. 18
W.P.(C). No. 234 of Letter No. 832/Dhanbad dated 02.12.2024 Shop No. 25
W.P.(C). No. 236 of Letter No. 80 of 12.03.2024 Shop No. 8
W.P.(C). No. 237 of Letter No. 841/Dhanbad dated 02.12.2024 Shop No. 34
W.P.(C). No. 242 of Letter No. 827/Dhanbad dated 02.12.2024 Shop No. 20
W.P.(C). No. 252 of Letter No. 823/Dhanbad dated 02.12.2024 Shop No. 16
W.P.(C). No. 253 of Letter No. 839/Dhanbad dated 02.12.2024 Shop No. 32
W.P.(C). No. 255 of Letter No. 822/Dhanbad dated 02.12.2024 Shop No. 15
W.P.(C). No. 256 of Letter No. 821/Dhanbad dated 02.12.2024 Shop No. 14
W.P.(C). No. 259 of Letter No. 813/Dhanbad dated 02.12.2024 Shop No. 5
W.P.(C). No. 299 of Letter No. 824/Dhanbad dated 02.12.2024 Shop No. 17
W.P.(C). No. 304 of Letter No. 818/Dhanbad dated 02.12.2024 Shop No. 11
W.P.(C). No. 312 of Letter No. 833/Dhanbad dated 02.12.2024 Shop No. 26
W.P.(C). No. 445 of Letter No. 837/Dhanbad dated 02.12.2024 Shop No. 30
14. Main argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the
respondent No.2 has no right, title and interest over the said land and as such it
had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned letters for eviction of the petitioners.
15. In support of the said contention, learned counsel for the petitioners
invites the attention of this Court to the judgment passed by the District Judge-
XVI, Dhanbad in Civil Appeal No. 164 of 2019, paragraph 15 of which is quoted
hereinbelow:-
"15. On the basis of discussion made above, it can be
said with certitude that the case of the
plaintiff/appellant finds support from evidence both
oral and documentary on the record. The genuineness
of the deed and Khatian of Bamarland have well been
proved. The witnesses have unequivocally supported
the case of the plaintiff. The Appellant/plaintiff has
been able to establish his right, title or interest over
the suit land. Be that as it may, the learned court
below has committed a manifest error that the
plaintiff is not entitled for recovery of possession over
the land described in Schedule A of the plaint by
dispossessing the defendant. The suit land belonged
to deity i.e. Debottar land. This aspect of the matter
has not been dismantled by the
respondent/defendant in any manner. The right, title
and interest with possession of appellant/plaintiff is
hereby confirmed. ---"
16. It would thus be evident that in Civil Appeal No. 164 of 2019, the District
Judge-XVI, Dhanbad has confirmed the right, title and interest of Damodar
Chandrajeu Thakur over the said land and the respondent No.2 was also one of
the respondents in the said appeal. The respondent No.2 has though contended
that Second Appeal No. 146/2024 has been preferred before this Court against
the judgment passed in Civil Appeal No. 164 of 2019, however, it has been
admitted that the said appeal is still pending and no interim relief has been
granted to it in the same.
17. Despite the fact that the respondent No.2 has no title over the said land,
it has issued the notices to the petitioners directing them to pay the rent
amounting to Rs.43,890.00 with 18% GST (total Rs.51,790.00) as well as to
vacate the shops said to have been illegally encroached by them followed by the
notices dated 23.09.2024 directing them to submit the allotment letters of the
respective shops. Thereafter, the impugned letters were issued to the
petitioners directing them to vacate the respective shops within three days.
Thus, the respondent No.2 has unilaterally decided its right, title and interest
over the said land and has directed the petitioners to vacate the respective
shops that too, after 18 years of their possession over the same.
18. It is well settled that if there is a bonafide dispute regarding the title of
the government vis-a-vis private persons over any property, the government
cannot take unilateral decision in its own favour claiming that the property
belongs to it and on the basis of such decision, cannot take recourse to evict the
persons who are in long possession of the property.
19. This Court is of the view that the respondent No.2 before initiating
proceeding against the petitioners for dispossessing them from their respective
shops, should have waited till the outcome of the second appeal preferred by it,
as at present it has no title over the said land.
20. That apart, the manner in which the impugned letters have been issued
to the petitioners' directing them to vacate their respective shops, goes against
the doctrine of fair play. Even if the petitioners were in illegal occupation of the
said land, they deserved to be evicted therefrom by following the procedure
prescribed under the law.
21. In the case of Meghmala & Ors. Vs. G. Narashimha Reddy & Ors.
reported in (2010) 8 SCC 383, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even
a trespasser cannot be evicted forcibly and he has to be evicted following the
due procedure prescribed under the law and the State authorities cannot
dispossess a person by an executive order.
22. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the impugned letters
issued to the petitioners by the respondent No.2 directing them to vacate the
shops in question, cannot be sustained in law and the same are hereby quashed
and set aside. The respondent No.2 will however be at liberty to initiate a fresh
proceeding in accordance with law for eviction of the petitioners from the shops
in question depending upon the outcome of Second Appeal No. 146 of 2004,
pending before a Bench of this Court. So far as the claim for refund of the
amount deposited by the petitioners before the respondent No.2 as rent of the
said shops is concerned, the same shall also be subject to the final outcome of
Second Appeal No. 146 of 2004.
23. The present writ petitions are accordingly allowed with the aforesaid
observations.
Satish/AFR (RAJESH SHANKAR, J)
