Jharkhand High Court
Taj Palace Marriage Hall vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors. ...... ... on 20 May, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (C) No. 2620 of 2025
....
Taj Palace Marriage Hall, through its Proprietor namely Md.
Allauddin ...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Ors. ...... Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : Md. Shadab Eqbal, Advocate
Md. Farhan Kibriya, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned GA-I
.....
02/20.05.2025 Heard Md. Shadab Eqbal, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned GA-I for the
State.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the petitioner has been served notice dated 03.05.2025 from
the office of Anchal Adhikari, Dhanbad for removing the
encroachment within seven days instead of 14 days and no
date is fixed for hearing the objection of the petitioner, which
is in violation of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in 2024 SCC Online SC 3291. It is submitted
that the petitioner has purchased 6 decimal of the land in the
year 2013 by the Registered Sale Deed and is running the
Marriage Hall for around six years and hence, interim
protection may be granted to him.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State that
there is no immediate threat for the present to the petitioner
and the notice has not been issued under Section 3 of the
Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (Now Jharkhand
Public Land Encroachment Act) and the Authorities are
examining the matter. Learned G.A. -I prays for time to file
the detailed counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the State
has vehemently opposed the prayer for the stay.
4. It appears from the Notice dated 02.05.2025 issued
by the Circle Officer, Dhanbad that though the proceeding has
not been initiated under Section 3 of the Bihar Public Land
Encroachment Act, 1956 as yet, but notice appears to be the
threat of demolition in the garb of initiating further
proceeding under Section 3 of the Bihar Public Land
Encroachment Act, 1956.
5. This Court is not inclined to accept the prayer of the
learned GA-I at this stage as the petitioner may have
apprehension regarding demolition.
6. It appears that the Authorities have not shown
compliance of the direction of the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Directions in the matter
of demolition of Structures reported in 2024 SCC Online SC
3291 while issuing the Notice dated 02.05.2025 by the Circle
Officer, Dhanbad.
7. As per law laid down by the Hon'ble supreme Court
in the above judgment, an Owner/Occupier has to be served
notice by a registered post with A/D and no demolition should
be carried without a prior show cause notice in accordance
with time provided by the Local Municipal Laws or within 15
days from the date of service of such notice, whichever is
later.
8. Apart from this several guidelines have been issued
in para-91 of the above judgment reported in 2024 SCC
Online SC 3291, which is to be carried out by the Authority
concerned at the time of initiating proceeding of demolition
and which is awaited.
9. Under the circumstances, the Concerned Authority
will not take coercive steps in respect of the structure of the
petitioner in question in light of the notice dated 02.05.2025
issued by the Circle Officer, Dhanbad, so far as this petitioner
is concerned.
10. Put up this case on 20.06.2025.
11. In the meantime, learned counsel for the State may
file the counter affidavit and serve the copy of the same to the
learned counsel for the petitioner in the meantime and the
learned counsel for the petitioner shall also file the reply to
the counter affidavit filed by the State.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Kamlesh/Amar
