[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Sarita Jaiswal vs State Of Jharkhand on 26 February, 2026
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
( 2026:JHHC:5829 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 1508 of 2026
(Filing No. W.P. (C) 2377 of 2026)
1. Sarita Jaiswal, aged about 59 years, W/o Manoj Kumar Jaiswal
2. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, aged about 58 years, S/o Late Raj Kumar
Prasad
Both Residents of village Amba Toli, P.O. and P.S. Mahuadand,
District-Latehar ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Deputy Commissioner, Latehar, P.O., P.S. and District-Latehar
3. Additional Collector, Latehar, P.O. P.S. and District-Latehar
4. S.D.O. Mahuadand, P.O. and P.S. Mahuadand, District-Latehar
5. Circle Officer, P.O. and P.S. Mahuadand, District-Latehar
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kalyan Roy, Advocate
: Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, S.C.-I
: Mr. Sachin Kumar, AC to SC-I
---
02/26.02.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed along with the certified copy of
the impugned order to remove one of the defects. Other defects are
ignored.
3. Considering the urgency shown, the case is taken up on merits.
The parties have been heard.
4. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
"That this application is directed for issuance of
an appropriate writ/writs in the form of mandamus
commanding upon the respondents to forthwith decide
the applications u/s 14 of Jharkhand Public Land
Encroachment Act 2000 preferred by the petitioner in
Appeal filed by him under section 11 of the aforesaid
act against the order passed by the respondent no. 5
in Encroachment case no. 2 /2025-26. It is further
directed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs
commanding upon the respondent no. 5 not to take
any coercive action against the petitioners in
connection with land at khata no. 268, plot no. 177
(0.20 acre), Plot no. 178(0.7 acre), plot no. 174 (0.15
( 2026:JHHC:5829 )
acre) under mauza Rampur, P.S - Mahuadand,
District - Latehar. It is further directed for quashing
of order dated 28/01/2026 passed by respondent no. 5
in case no. 2/2025-26 in connection with the
proceeding drawn under the provisions of the
Jharkhand Public Land Encroachment Act 2000."
5. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that the writ petition can be disposed of on a
short point in as much as the appeal under Section 11 of the Jharkhand
Public Land Encroachment Act 2000 along with a petition for stay
preferred by the petitioner has remained pending before the appellate
authority since 21.02.2026 and the respondents have taken steps to
demolish the structure of the petitioner.
6. The learned counsel submits that the appellate authority i.e. the
Additional Collector was not holding court on account of the fact that
there were municipal elections. Now the municipal election is over but
the counting is yet to be done. He has submitted that the petitioner is
ready to appear for hearing on the matter on any day before the
appellate authority as may be fixed by this court, even tomorrow.
7. While giving the time line, the learned counsel submits that a
proceeding under Jharkhand Public Land Encroachment Act 2000 was
initiated and the final order was passed by the Circle Officer on
28.01.2026 and thereafter the certified copy of the order was issued
only on 21.02.2026 on which day the appeal with stay petition was
also filed. He has further submitted that in the meantime, the petitioner
was asked to remove the alleged encroachment by 25.02.2026 and on
25.02.2026 itself, part demolition has already been done keeping the
appeal as well as stay petition pending.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents-State has submitted
that the record reveals that the disputed construction is over public
land. However he submits that appeal can be decided expeditiously if
the petitioner is directed to appear before the appellate authority and
there would be no impediment if the date is fixed tomorrow. However,
he submits that tomorrow is counting of municipal elections, and the
( 2026:JHHC:5829 )
date for appearance of the petitioner in appeal may be fixed day after
tomorrow.
9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case this
court finds that the petitioner has taken prompt steps within the period
of limitation to challenge the order of demolition arising out of
proceedings under Jharkhand Public Land Encroachment Act 2000
and has also filed stay petition and the fact that the appeal could not be
taken on merits on account of municipal elections. The petitioner
cannot be left remediless.
10. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the
petitioner to appear before the appellate authority at 11 A.M. on
28.02.2026. Upon his appearance, the appellate authority shall do the
needful and pass appropriate order on the appeal/pending stay
application and make all endeavor to decide the appeal itself within a
period of one month thereafter.
11. Till the order is passed on the stay petition or appeal, whichever
is earlier, there shall be no further demolition pursuant to the order
passed by the Circle officer dated 28.01.2026. Once an order is passed
in stay petition or appeal the parties will be governed by such order.
12. However, it is made clear that this court has not entered into the
merits of the rival claim of either party. It will certainly be opened to
the appellate authority to apply his independent mind on the stay
application and also the merits of the appeal. The order on the stay
petition/ order on the final appeal shall also be communicated to the
petitioner through speed post.
13. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Dated: 26.02.2026
Uploaded on: 26.02.2026
Binit
