[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Khushboo Kataruka vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 7 January, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2023:JHHC:13759-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(PIL) No. 1463 of 2020
---------
Khushboo Kataruka ... ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand and Ors. ... ... Respondents
With
W.P.(PIL) No. 1325 of 2011
---------
Court on its Own Motion
Versus
State of Jharkhand and Ors. ... ... Respondents
With
W.P.(PIL) No. 7498 of 2016
---------
Surendra Kumar Paswan ... ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand and Ors. ... ... Respondents
With
---------
Rajiv Kumar Singh ... ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand and Ors. ... ... Respondents
With
---------
Rajiv Kumar Singh ... ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand and Ors. ... ... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
----------
Amicus Curiae : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Kashish Tiwary, Advocate
For the Petitioner : Ms. Khusboo Kataruka, In-person
Mr. Shubham Katuruka, Advocate
Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III
Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, AC to AAG-III
Mr. Uttam Kumar Das, GP-VI
Mr. Ayush Deb, AC to GP-VI
Mr. Aditya raman, AC to GA-III
For the U.O. I. : Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI
Ms. Shiwani Jaluka, AC to ASGI
For the R.M.C. : Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, Advocate
For the D.M.C. : Mr. Vijay Shankar Jha, Advocate
For the RRDA : Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, Advocate
For the JSPCB : Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate
Ms. Risheeta Singh, Advocate
Page | 1
2023:JHHC:13759-DB
For the JUIDCO : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate
Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate
For the DVC : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate
For the Intervener : Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
-----------
th
44/Dated: 07 January, 2026
I.A. No. 17366 of 2025 in W.P.(PIL) No. 1463 of 2020:
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed by the applicant
praying to intervene as party respondent in the instant petition as the
three-storied building of the applicant situated in Mauza-Hotwasi,
Thana-Nagri, Khata No.50, R.S. Plot No. 986, P.O. & P.S.-
Jagarnathupur, District-Ranchi is under threat of demolition in the light
of the order passed on 15.12.2025.
2. Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel for the intervener has
submitted that the descendants of the Khatiyani Raiyat had sold the land
on 29.03.2014 by registered sale deed to one Gyanti Devi and thereafter,
the said Gyanti Devi had sold the land to vendor namely, Ramakant
Bhagat of the intervener on 08.08.2014 and thereafter, the said Ramakatn
Bhagat on 19.01.2016 and 10.02.2016 had sold 08 decimals and 02
decimals of land respectively to the intervener.
3. It has been submitted that after the purchase of the said land, the
intervener had applied for mutation and the correction slips were granted
to the intervener in Mutation Case No. 439/R 27-2016-17 for 08
decimals and further vide Mutation Case No. 256/R 27-2016-17 for 02
decimals of land. The rent receipts were also issued in favour of the
intervener. Thereafter, vide Building Plan Case No. BP/02 ARA/2017-
19/04, the map was sanctioned on 06.11.2017. Thereafter, the
applicant/intervener had constructed the house/building.
4. It has also been submitted that no notice has ever been served upon the
applicant with respect to the fact of construction of house over the
encroached land and all of a sudden on 18.12.2025, the respondent-
authority had visited the site for demolition of the said house/building
but on the request of the intervener, the same had not been demolished
and some time had been given to get suitable order. Therefore, the
present applicant has sought for leave to intervene in the present petition
Page | 2
2023:JHHC:13759-DB
and for restraining the respondents from demolishing the applicant's
house/building.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that
the land which is claimed by the applicant/intervener as its rightful
owner being purchased through registered sale deed for which rent
receipts has also been issued, has been encroached upon and the
house/building has been constructed over the encroached land/area as the
said plot had already been acquired vide L.A. Case No. 46/1958-59 and
the compensation to that effect had already been paid to the original
claimants, i.e., Lagnu Singh, Tilak Singh and Rajput Shahdeo.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent, to fortify his argument, has drawn
the attention of this Court to the supplementary affidavit filed on
15.12.2025 wherefrom it would be evident from the letter no. 1409 dated
02.12.2025 under the signature of Circle Officer, Nagri, Ranchi which is
annexed as Annexure-B that the house/building in question has been
constructed over the land by encroaching the same.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted in response to the
submission made on behalf of the applicant that notice has not been
given, that it is incorrect on the part of the applicant to take the said
ground as the notice in Encroachment Case No. 05/2020-21 has been
issued twice to the applicant vide notices dated 04.12.2020 and
09.01.2021 and till date the applicant has neither responded to the same
nor has vacated the premises and as such, submission has been made that
the instant interlocutory application filed for intervening in the present
petition as also the prayer for restrainment from demolition of his house,
therefore, is fit to be rejected.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused
the entire record.
9. It needs to refer herein that the matter was heard on 06.01.2026 and in
order to come to the conclusive finding, the learned State counsel was
directed to file response.
10. The learned State counsel has come out with the instruction and placed
certain documents in support of the fact that the plot no.986 is total 29
Page | 3
2023:JHHC:13759-DB
decimals as per khatiyan and the said land has already been acquired
vide L.A. Case No. 46/1958-59 over which the Dhurwa Dam has been
constructed and the land in question which has been shown to be in the
possession of the present applicant/intervener is under the catchment
area of Dhurwa Dam.
11. The applicant/intervener is seeking a direction on the basis of the
subsequent documents, i.e., deed of registration, rent receipts, building
map, etc. etc. but the same cannot be said to be document establishing
the title of the applicant in view of the admitted fact that the land has
been acquired way back in the year 1958-59 for the purpose of
establishment of HEC (Heavy Engineering Corporation) over which
Dhurwa Dam has been constructed.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after going through the said
documents, has submitted that even accepting the land has been acquired
but since he is in the possession of the said plot on the basis of the
documents created by the revenue authorities and as such, the right may
be protected. But, the law is well settled that if the foundation is wrong
due to creation of the subsequent document(s), the wrong created at the
inception cannot be allowed to be rectified.
13. It is settled principle of law that "if the foundation is wrong, the
superstructure falls" (Sublato fundamento cadit opus), means that if the
basic premise or jurisdiction of a legal order, decision, or process is
invalid, all subsequent actions or consequences derived from it are
automatically void, null, and unenforceable, effectively rendering them
nullities in the eyes of the law. The invalidity of the foundational act
makes consequential actions automatically void. Reference in this regard
be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania, (2010) 9
SCC 437. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is being referred
as under:
"20. The aforesaid judgments are passed on the application of legal
maxim sublato fundamento, cadit opus, which means in case a foundation
is removed, the superstructure falls.
21. In Badrinath v. State of T.N. [(2000) 8 SCC 395 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 13]
this Court observed that once the basis of a proceeding is gone, all
Page | 4
2023:JHHC:13759-DB
consequential acts, action, orders would fall to the ground automatically
and this principle of consequential order which is applicable to judicial
and quasi-judicial proceedings is equally applicable to the administrative
orders.
14. It also needs to refer herein that in the order dated 15.12.2025, this Court
has taken note of the report submitted by the JHALSA pursuant to the
order dated 20.11.2025 passed by this Court wherein reference of sites
and status of the encroached land has been given as also the status of the
encroachment as furnished by the learned Amicus wherein the reference
of the plot in question herein has been made that in the Hotwasi Mouza
altogether 16 encroachments have been identified. For ready reference,
the order dated 15.12.2025 is being referred as under:
"Order No.42: Dated 15th December, 2025
1. It is rather unfortunate that this Court since 2020 is struggling to have
the encroachments removed from the water bodies as per the mandate of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court directions and also the law.
2. It is not only the individuals who are complacent in this issue but
unfortunately, even the Officers with whom the authority is vested have
simply turned a blind eye to this issue or else we see no reason why the
same could not have been resolved over a period of five years.
3. It also needs to be mentioned that the five years we are computing is only
the outer limit or else this Court is dealing with the issue for one and a half
decade in W.P.(PIL) No.1325 of 2011.
4. It is high time that the State authorities should pull their socks or else this
Court shall be constrained to pass orders which may be inconvenient for the
State Officers.
5. After all, we really failed to understand as to why the authorities of the
State cannot act once for all to remove the encroachments.
6. We have been repeatedly impressing upon the State to bring about a
legislation similar to the one's promulgated by the State of Telangana,
Andhra Pradesh etc. with regard to the encroachment and we have also
emphasized time and again as to why the welfare and other Schemes that
have been floated by the State and the Central Government from time to
time are not withdrawn from such encroachers including the amenities like
water and electricity, ration etc. etc.
7. This Court, earlier on 18th April, 2023 disposed of writ petitions except
W.P.(PIL) No.1325 of 2011 with a direction to the State to carry out to
remove all encroachments in and around all water bodies in the State and to
take appropriate steps for curtailment and further misuse of the water
bodies. The State authorities were also directed to take appropriate actions
for stopping and dumping of solid or liquid waste materials in any of the
water bodies of the State.
8. It was only when the State failed to comply with the order passed by this
Court, we were compelled to revive these petitions.
9. The sites and the status of encroachment are clearly evident from the
report submitted by the JHALSA pursuant to the order passed by this Court
on 20.11.2025.
Page | 5
2023:JHHC:13759-DB
10. The status of the encroachment, as furnished by learned Amicus as on
date, is quoted as under: -
"Notes on Status Report regarding Encroachments in terms of Order
dated 20.11.2025 on behalf of Amicus Curiae"
Area/Water Body Status of Encroachment
Nagri and Namkum areas More than 67 encroachments in
Nagri, 40 in Balagaon, 6
encroachments were identified in
Hadser, 3 in Labed, 2 in Sambo, and
16 in Hotwasi.
In village Labed, it was found that I
encroached area is still existing on
spot, I partly removed and 1
removed completely.
Nagri area, near Dhurwa Several constructions close to the
Dam waterbed. The total number of
encroachments in this area is
estimated to be more than 54.
Hotwasi village of Nagri 16 encroachments in Hotwasi
Area as well as Tundul Village. 2 boundary walls at
Mouza riverbed as encroachment in Tundul
Mouza.
Hehal Anchal Bajra River Total area of the river bed is
Bed Near to DAV Hehal approximately 85 feet out of which
Ranchi around 70 feet of the river bed area has
been encroached by dumping concrete
cemented wastes material into the river
bed.
Approximately 20 to 25 feet from the
middle of the river bed has been
encroached upon by constructing
temporary road entering to the
construction site from the main road
adjacent to main bridge.
Near CO Office, Hehal No encroachments in the adjacent
Riverbed Area riverbed areas, however during the
physical inspection, the team found that
huge garbage has been dumped on
both sides of the riverbed.
Harmu Mukti Dham More waste materials and garbage
Riverbed Area have been dumped on both sides of
the river bed.
Kanke Dam Riverbed Area The Junior Engineer, Ph.E.D.
Department has submitted that
proper fencing of the dam area is
going on.
Few residents have constructed
some portion of boundary walls
within dam premises.
Doranda and Adjacent River Most of the constructions adjacent
Areas to riverbed has already been
demolished.
CO, Argora has submitted that the
process to completely vacate the
Page | 6
2023:JHHC:13759-DB
encroached area is still going on
and very soon all the identified
encroached area near riverbed will
be demolished.
Mecon Area No development related to removal
of the encroachments near to Rose
garden, Mecon riverbed area.
Debris and garbage were also found
accumulated throughout the
riverbeds.
Bada Talab near Seva Sadan Team has not found any such
Hospital surroundings, permanent encroachment
Upper Bazar Ranchi surrounding the waterbed of the
said pond, however the team has
found some temporary stalls were
erected there.
Harmu Riverbed near More than 50% of the River Bed has
Doranda under plot no.22 been encroached by constructing the
small mud houses as well as pukka
structure. Huge amount of debris
and garbage blocked the water flow
resulting in foul smell.
Harmu Riverbed near Some encroachment as pukka
Doranda under plot no.24 construction i.e. Old School, Pukka
Risaldar Nagar Roads adjacent to river side was
found.
Around 60 to 80 feet of the riverbed
has been encroached.
11. As a matter of sheer indulgence and by way of last indulgence, we grant
two weeks' time to the State to remove all the encroachments, failing which,
the erring Officer(s) shall be liable to be proceeded and punished under the
Contempt of Courts Act.
12. List along with Filing No. W.P.(C) 11732/2025 and 11729 of 2025 on 6
th January, 2026.
13. As regards, Bada Talab, a feasibility study for desilting, de-sludging and
restoration has been commissioned to the National Institute of Hydrology,
Roorkee and the said report was said to be awaited, as reflected from the
order passed by this Court on 10th October, 2025.
14. We are quite sure that the reports by now must have been received by
the respondents, therefore, let the same be placed before this Court on the
next date of hearing along with the details of follow-up steps, if any, taken
by the respondents in this regard on the basis of the said report.
15. In addition thereto, the respondents shall also furnish the up-to-date
status of the unauthorized construction cases as find mentioned in
paragraph-29 of the order passed by this Court on 31.07.2025 whereby
direction was passed by this Court directing the respondents to complete
these proceedings within a period of three months.
16. Lastly, the respondents shall also place on record by way of an affidavit
as to what steps they have taken in this regard for the cleaning of the Harmu
River and ensure that there is complete ban of non-biodegradable plastics
and pet bottles.
17. We would impress upon the State Government to look into the
desirability of imposing complete ban on pet bottles especially having
Page | 7
2023:JHHC:13759-DB
capacity of less than one liter in the line of ban imposed in the State of
Himachal Pradesh."
15. This Court has also gone through the letter no. 1409 dated 02.12.2025
issued under the signature of Circle Officer, Nagri, Ranchi which is
annexed as Annexure-B to the supplementary counter affidavit wherein
the reference of the plot in question herein, i.e., situated in Mauza-
Hotwasi, Thana-Nagri, Khata No.50, R.S. Plot No. 986, P.O. & P.S.-
Jagarnathupur, District-Ranchi finds mention at serial no.12 as
encroached land.
16. It needs to refer herein that the issue involved in the present public
interest litigation is regarding the encroachment in the catchment area of
water bodies, i.e., rivers, ponds, dams, etc. etc. wherein the report/status
has been called for from the concerned authorities regarding the
encroachment.
17. Pursuant thereto, report/status had been submitted wherein various
encroachments have been identified in the catchment area of the water
bodies. The land in question herein has also been identified coming
under the fold of encroached land, i.e., under the Dhurwa-Hatia Dam, as
per the report of Circle Officer, Nagri, Ranchi which finds mention at
serial no.12 of the said letter.
18. This Court, considering the fact that the documents which are being
relied upon by the applicant in support of his title over the land in
question cannot be said to be reliable one since the said land/plot had
already been acquired vide L.A. Case No. 46 of 1958-59, as such, the
present interlocutory application deserves to be dismissed, accordingly,
stands dismissed.
19. It would be relevant to mention here that it is also a case of like nature as
that of W.P.(PIL) No. 4736 of 2018 and analogous cases wherein the
construction over the acquired land for the purpose of establishment of
RIMS was allowed and in order to put deterrent upon the revenue
authority or the registering authority or the map sanctioning authority or
the authority of RERA, etc., we have passed an order of registering FIR
and investigation be done by the Anti-Corruption Bureau by refraining
ourselves from handing over the case to the CBI, for the present, in the
Page | 8
2023:JHHC:13759-DB
backdrop of the fact that the authorities while creating the documents,
have committed gross illegality as they being the public servant are
supposed to protect the public land. Relevant part of the order is being
referred as under:
"26. On similar line, this Court can also handover the investigation to the
CBI in the present scenario but, for the present, we are refraining ourself
in handing over the investigation to the CBI rather this Court is directing
the State Police to institute FIR and investigation be conducted by the
Anti-Corruption Bureau against the erring officials.
27. Further, departmental proceeding be also initiated against them who
are found to be involved in either registration of the land in the name of
the subsequent transferee(s); or manipulation of the revenue record(s), or
issuing rent receipt(s) or issuing non-incumbrance certificate(s); or
sanctioning the building plan(s)/map(s) as to how the Government Land
has been allowed to be transferred in the name of a third party.
28. This Court is also of the view that if these officials would have been
vigilant then there would not have been suffering of the people who are
now suffering due to the demolition of the illegal construction over the
acquired land of the RIMS, i.e., the government acquired land.
29. This Court is also of the view that the residents, whose residences
have/are being demolished, are also entitled to be compensated but the
question is that why the State Exchequer should be made to bear the
expenses of compensating the affected persons due to the illegality
committed by the officials of the State, Municipal Corporation etc. etc. and
why not the erring officials and the builders who have allowed the
construction over the acquired Government Land or constructed the multi-
storey building(s).
30. Accordingly, the State is directed to fix accountability on each and
every official who is involved in the said mal-practices and adequately
compensate the residents/affected persons whose construction(s) have
been demolished which expenses as observed above shall be borne by
these erring officials and the builders."
20. As would appear from the factual aspect of the present case, herein also,
the same illegality has been committed by creating documents, i.e., rent
receipts, sanction of map, deed of registration, etc. etc. of the acquired
land which had already been acquired for the purpose of establishment of
HEC over which the Dhurwa Dam has been constructed.
21. It has been informed by the learned State counsel today that in pursuance
of the direction passed in W.P.(PIL) No. 4736 of 2018 and analogous
cases vide order dated 20.12.2025, FIR has already been instituted by the
Anti-Corruption Bureau.
22. Likewise in the instant case also, this Court is refraining itself from
handing over the case to the CBI rather, deems it fit and proper to direct
Page | 9
2023:JHHC:13759-DB
the State Police to institute FIR and investigation be conducted by the
Anti-Corruption Bureau against the erring officials.
23. Accordingly, the State Police is directed to institute FIR and
investigation be conducted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau against the
erring officials.
24. Further, departmental proceeding be also initiated against them who are
found to be involved in either registration of the land in the name of the
subsequent transferee(s); or manipulation of the revenue record(s), or
issuing rent receipt(s) or issuing non-incumbrance certificate(s); or
sanctioning the building plan(s)/map(s) as to how the acquired land has
been allowed to be transferred in the name of a third party.
25. Let the update be furnished regarding the institution of FIR and
investigation on the next date of hearing.
I.A. No. 5 of 2026 in W.P.(PIL) No. 1463 of 2020:
26. The present interlocutory application has been filed by the applicants
praying to intervene as party respondents in the instant petition as the
applicants are residing in Risaldar Nagar, Plot No.24, Doranda for the
last 30-35 years and are suffering due to demolition of encroachments in
the catchment area of Harmu River.
27. Mr. Shresth Gautam, learned counsel for the applicants/interveners, at
the outset, has admitted the fact that the land over which the present
applicants/interveners are residing is under the catchment area of Harmu
River.
28. Learned counsel for the applicants/interveners has submitted that the
applicants/interveners are claiming their right only on the ground that
they have been residing for the last 30-35 years in the catchment area of
Harmu River and have constructed their houses.
29. The question arises herein that merely because the applicants/interveners
are residing in the catchment area of Harmu River for the last 30-35
years, can a positive direction be passed by this Court by allowing the
applicants to reside in that area where the water reservoir/body is there.
Page | 10
2023:JHHC:13759-DB
30. We have already expressed our view while dealing with one
interlocutory application being I.A. No. 15477 of 2025 filed in the
instant case, wherein on the basis of van patta, right over the land has
been claimed but taking into consideration the fact that the land has
already been acquired and merely because on the basis of van patta, no
right can be claimed over the acquired land. Relevant paragraph of the
said order is being referred as under:
"7. This Court, on appreciation of the arguments advanced on behalf of
the parties, is of the considered view that the documents which are now
being placed before this Court for its scrutiny ought to have been placed
by the concerned before the competent authority, in pursuant to the notice
issued way back in the year, 2020. Thereafter, this Court has passed series
of orders but no such application has been filed, purposely the same has
not been filed, since, the same was not submitted before the Circle Officer
in pursuant to the notice issued sometime in the year, 2020.
8. It is the bounden duty of one or the other that if they are claiming their
right over the land in question, then they should have placed the document
which has been said to be issued in their favour for its
scrutiny/examination by the concerned authority.
9. In the instant interlocutory application, no reason has been assigned as
to why these documents have not been placed before the concerned Circle
Officer in pursuant to the notice issued.
10. The documents have been filed for the first time before this Court for
its scrutiny claiming the title over the land in question.
11. This Court has posed pin-pointed question upon the learned counsel
representing these persons, who are claiming the title over the land in
question but how can the title be conferred upon them if the land has
already been acquired by the State Government in favour of the Heavy
Engineering Corporation (HEC), wherein, the reservoir like Dhurwa Dam
has been constructed.
12. Learned counsel for the Interveners has failed to give any response.
13. This Court, therefore, is of the view that once the land has been
acquired under the acquisition mechanism way back in the year 1954,
there cannot be any conferment of right and title said to be there in favour
of one or the other within the premises of the Heavy Engineering
Corporation (HEC) which has been established way back in the year,
1958.
14. This Court, considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the
parties, is of the view that the instant application is not fit to be allowed.
15. Accordingly, I.A. No.15477 of 2025 stands dismissed."
31. This Court, taking into consideration the admission on the part of the
applicants/intervener that the houses of the applicants have been
constructed over the catchment area of water body, i.e., Harmu River, as
such, merely because they have been residing in the area for the last 30-
35 years, it will not be proper for this Court in exercise of power
conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to allow the
Page | 11
2023:JHHC:13759-DB
applicants to perpetuate the illegality otherwise the same will be contrary
to the principle, i.e., illegality cannot be allowed to be perpetuated and
the moment the illegality has been pointed out, it is to be rectified.
Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered in the case of
State of Orissa and Anr. vs. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436,
wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that if any
illegality has been committed, the same is to be rectified the moment it
came to the notice of the authorities and if such exercise would not be
resorted, it will amount to perpetuating the illegality. The Hon‟ble Apex
Court in the said judgment, at paragraphs 56 and 57 has been pleased to
hold as under:- ―
"56. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 is not meant to
perpetuate illegality and it does not envisage negative equality. Thus, even
if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some benefit
inadvertently or by mistake, such order does not confer any legal right on
the petitioner to get the same relief. (Vide Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit
Singh, Yogesh Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Anand Buttons Ltd. v.
State of Haryana, K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P., Krishan Bhatt v. State of
J&K, Upendra Narayan Singh and Union of India v. Kartick Chandra
Mondal.)
57.This principle also applies to judicial pronouncements. Once the court
comes to the conclusion that a wrong order has been passed, it becomes
the solemn duty of the court to rectify the mistake rather than perpetuate
the same. While dealing with a similar issue, this Court in Hotel Balaji v.
State of A.P. observed as under: (SCC p. 551, para 12) ―12. ... ‗2. ... To
perpetuate an error is no heroism. To rectify it is the compulsion of
judicial conscience. In this, we derive comfort and strength from the wise
and inspiring words of Justice Bronson in Pierce v. Delameter at p. 18:
―a Judge ought to be wise enough to know that he is fallible and,
therefore, ever ready to learn: great and honest enough to discard all
mere pride of opinion and follow truth wherever it may lead: and
courageous enough to acknowledge his error."
32. Likewise, the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Union of India & Anr. v.
Narendra Singh, (2008) 2 SCC 750, at paragraph 32 held as under: ―
"32.It is true that the mistake was of the Department and the respondent
was promoted though he was not eligible and qualified. But, we cannot
countenance the submission of the respondent that the mistake cannot be
corrected. Mistakes are mistakes and they can always be corrected by
following due process of law. In ICAR v. T.K. Suryanarayan it was held
that if erroneous promotion is given by wrongly interpreting the rules, the
employer cannot be prevented from applying the rules rightly and in
correcting the mistake. It may cause hardship to the employees but a court
of law cannot ignore statutory rules."
33. This Court, basing upon the aforesaid factual aspect and particularly
taking into consideration the admission on behalf of the applicants that
they are claiming their right over the said land only on the ground that
Page | 12
2023:JHHC:13759-DB
they are residing in the catchment area of Harmu River for the last 30-35
year, as such, no positive direction can be passed.
34. Accordingly, the present interlocutory application stands dismissed.
W.P.(PIL) No. 1463 of 2020 and Ors.:
35. The respondent no.1 has filed its counter affidavit. However, we are not
at all satisfied with the action taken by the said respondent as it deals
with the single isolated incident regarding the discharge of acid from the
battery shops which have allegedly damaged the pipeline and resulted
into contamination of potable water, given the fact that there have been
recent instances in Indore on account of contamination of drinking water.
36. It is the high time that the respondents realize their responsibilities
because as many as 127 complaints have been submitted within a short
period of two months regarding the drainage water being supplied to the
households.
37. This, in fact, is not the sole responsibility of the respondent no.1 alone,
but is the collective responsibility of respondent no.1 along with Ranchi
Municipal Corporation.
38. Therefore, let the Ranchi Municipal Corporation file its comprehensive
affidavit by the next date of hearing.
39. In the order dated 15th December 2025, we had taken note of the
feasibility study for de-silting, de-sludging and restoration of Bada Talab
that is being carried out by the National Institute of Hydrology, Roorkee
and had expressed a concern regarding the submission of such report, but
for some strange reasons, the report has not been placed on record
despite clear direction to this effect.
40. Therefore, the respondents are directed to ensure that the report is filed
before the next date of hearing.
41. Lastly and importantly, we find that overhead tank situated near Zila
School (behind Kotwali Police Station, Ranchi), which supplies water to
Ward No.20 including the Old Commissioner's Compound and Lake
Road (Surya Mandir) to Urdu Library, Main Road, is in a highly
Page | 13
2023:JHHC:13759-DB
dilapidated condition and if not repaired immediately, could pose a
potential threat as it could fall anytime.
42. Therefore, the respondent no. 1 is directed to conduct study as to
whether this Tank is fit enough to withstand the rigors of the weather for
sufficiently long time or an alternate tank is required to be built. In case
it is found that repairs can be carried out, then the same would be done
promptly and in case a new tank is required to be constructed, then all
steps for making budgetary allocation, etc. be taken before the next date
of hearing.
43. The concerned respondents are also directed to file a compliance report
with regard to the compliance of paragraph 31 of the order dated 31 st of
July 2025.
44. We make it absolutely clear that all the demolitions and evictions that
have been carried out by the State and the RMC at its own or under the
orders of the Court, for that the State and the RMC will be entitled to
recover the costs from such encroachers and no other Court except this
Court will entertain any petition in this regard.
45. The RMC shall also carry out the work of erecting a boundary wall from
the Satellite Colony upto Swarnrekha River, Ghaghra.
46. Necessary budgetary allocation shall be made by the State Government
for this purpose. The work shall be carried out after evicting all the
encroachers within a period of six weeks.
47. As regards the new scheme for supply of water, which is stated to be
underway and the Urban Development and Housing Department and
JUDCO are stated to be the competent authority to address the same;
status report in this regard be also filed before the next date.
48. List this case on 04th February, 2026.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.)
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
07th January, 2026
Saurabh/-
Uploaded on: 09.01.2026
Page | 14
