[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Ranchi Regional Development Authority vs Lovelin Kumar on 18 March, 2026
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 19 of 2026
[Arising out of W.P. (C) No. 4678 of 2023]
1. Ranchi Regional Development Authority, having its office at 1st
Floor, Pragati Sadan, Kutchery Road, P.O. G.P.O. Ranchi, P.S.
Kotwali, District Ranchi.
2. Vice- Chairman, Ranchi Regional Development Authority, having its
office at 1st Floor, Pragati Sadan, Kutchery Road, P.O. G.P.O.
Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi.
... Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Lovelin Kumar, aged about 47 years, son of Late Shyam Bihari Tiwary,
Resident of Tiwary Niwas, Tripathy Colony, Behind Hotel Yuvraj
Palace, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... Writ Petitioner/Respondent
WITH
L.P.A. No. 26 of 2026
[Arising out of W.P. (C) No. 1592 of 2022]
1. Ranchi Regional Development Authority, having its office at 1st
Floor, Pragati Sadan, Kutchery Road, P.O. G.P.O. Ranchi, P.S.
Kotwali, District Ranchi.
2. Vice- Chairman, Ranchi Regional Development Authority, having its
office at 1st Floor, Pragati Sadan, Kutchery Road, P.O. G.P.O.
Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi.
... Respondents/Appellants
Versus
1. Premlata Agarwal, aged about 70 years, wife of Prakash Chand
Agarwal, resident of Cozy Corner, Burdwan Compound, P.O.
Lalpur, P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi.
Writ Petitioner/Respondent
2. State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Department of Urban
Development & Housing Department, Project Building, Dhurwa,
P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
... Respondent/Performa Respondent
WITH
L.P.A. No. 32 of 2026
[Arising out of W.P. (C) No. 1595 of 2022]
1. Ranchi Regional Development Authority, having its office at 1st
Floor, Pragati Sadan, Kutchery Road, P.O. G.P.O. Ranchi, P.S.
Kotwali, District Ranchi.
Page 1 of 8
2. Vice- Chairman, Ranchi Regional Development Authority, having its
office at 1st Floor, Pragati Sadan, Kutchery Road, P.O. G.P.O.
Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi.
... Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Premlata Agarwal, aged about 70 years, wife of Prakash Chand
Agarwal, resident of Cozy Corner, Burdwan Compound, P.O. Lalpur,
P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi.
... Writ Petitioner/Respondent
WITH
L.P.A. No. 40 of 2026
[Arising out of W.P. (C) No. 4130 of 2021]
1. Vice- Chairman, Ranchi Regional Development Authority, having its
office at Kutchery Road, Deputy Para, Ahirtoli, P.O. G.P.O., P.S.
Kotwali, District Ranchi.
2. Secretary cum State Officer, Ranchi Regional Development
Authority, having its office at, Kutchery Road, Deputy Para, Ahirtoli,
P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi.
... Respondents/Appellants
Versus
1. R.S. Education Foundation Pvt. Ltd., Having its registered 29/1A,
Ground Floor, Chandranath Chaterjee Street, P.O. G.P.O, P.S.
Bhawanipore, District Kolkata, State West Bengal, through its
authorized signatory Pankaj Banka, aged about 43 years, S/O Sri
Ramesh Banka R/O Ratu Road, P.O. G.P.O. & P.S. Kotwali District
Ranchi.
2. R.S. Foundation Pvt. Ltd. Having its registered office at "Radha
Gouri", Goushala Chowk, North Market Road, Uppar Bazar, P.O.
G.P.O, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi through its authorized signatory
Prashant Kumar, aged about 42 years, S/O Shri P.C. Prasad, R/O
Singh More, P.O. Hatia. & P.S. Jagganathpur, District Ranchi
3. Sharda Global School, run by RS. Foundation situated and having
its office at Bukru, P.Ο. Kanke, P.S. Kanke, District Ranchi through
its authorized signatory Bipin Kumar, aged about 32 years, S/O
Late Mahendra Ram near B.A.U. Gate Kanke, P.O. Kanke, P.S.
Kanke, District Ranchi
Writ Petitioners/ Respondents
4. State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Urban
Development & Housing Department, Government of Jharkhand,
Page 2 of 8
having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O Dhurwa, P.S
Jagannathpur, District Ranchi.
Respondent/ Performa Respondent
WITH
L.P.A. No. 59 of 2026
[Arising out of W.P. (C) No. 6039 of 2023]
1. Ranchi Regional Development Authority, having its office at 1st
Floor, Pragati Sadan, Kutchery Road, P.O. G.P.O. Ranchi, P.S.
Kotwali, District Ranchi.
2. Vice- Chairman, Ranchi Regional Development Authority, having its
office at 1st Floor, Pragati Sadan, Kutchery Road, P.O. G.P.O.
Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi.
... Respondents/Appellants
Versus
1. Minu Trivedi, aged about 65 years, wife of Late Bharat Nath Trivedi,
presently residing at Flat No. 4C, Vijaya Homes, Amethiya Nagar,
Namkum, P.O. Namkum and P.S. Namkum, District -Ranchi,
permanent resident of Tripathi Colony, Tiwary Niwas, Behind Hotel
Yuvraj Palace, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
2. Sheo Narayan Prasad, about aged 64 years, son of Late Harikesh
Vishwakarma, resident of Qtr. No. ME/28-B Area V, Maithon Dam,
P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
3. Meena Singh, aged about 58 years, wife of Dilip Singh, resident of
Makan-250, Bina Niketan, Near Sarkari Kuwa, Mani Tola, Hinoo,
P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. Seetu Singh Chhetry, aged about 45 years, wife of Devesh Singh
Chhetry, resident of Near Sarkari Kuan, Bina Niketan, Mani Tola,
Hinoo, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
5. Kabita Pradhan, aged about 50 years, wife of Tej Kumar Pradhan,
resident of Flat No.4B, Vijaya Homes, Amethiya Nagar, Near
Vinayaka Hospital, Khijri Block, P.O. Namkum, P.S. Namkum,
District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
6. Tej Kumar Pradhan, aged about 55 years, son of Sukman Pradhan,
resident of Flat No.4B, Vijaya Homes, Amethiya Nagar, Near
Vinayaka Hospital, Khijri Block, P.O. Namkum, P.S. Namkum,
District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
7. Shibendu Majumdar, aged about 58 years, son of Purnendu
Bhuson, resident of Majumdar, Vijaya Homes Flat No. 2C, Amethia
Page 3 of 8
Nagar, Namkum, P.O. Namkum, P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
8. Purnendu Kumar Singh, aged about 62 years, son of Ram Prawesh
Singh, resident of Flat No. 4A, Shree Prakash Apartment, Bariatu
Road, Near Agrawal Nursing Home, Karamtoli, Ranchi, P.O. Ranchi
University, P.S. Morabadi, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
9. Chandra Chur Chakraborty, aged about 54 years, son of Late
Nityanand Chakraborty, resident of Bishop Westcott Boy's School
Namkum, P.O. Namkum, P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
10. Samapati Chakraborty, aged about 39 years, wife of Chandra Chur
Chakraborty, resident of Bishop Westcott Boy's School Namkum,
P.O. Namkum, P.S. Namkum District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
11. Chandra Sekhar Chakraborty, aged about 60 years, son of late
Nityanand Chakraborty, resident of Bishop Westcott Boy's School,
Namkum, P.O. Namkum, P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
12. Smt. Banashree Chakraborty, wife of Chandra Sekhar Chakraborty
resident of Bishop Westcott Boy's School Namkum, P.O. Namkum,
P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... Writ Petitioners/Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---------
For the Appellants: Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General
Mr. Shray Mishra, A.C. to A.G.
Ms. Sonal Tiwari, A.C. to A.G.
Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. S.C.-II
Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-II
For the Respondents: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Bhaskar Trivedi, Advocate
Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate
(LPA Nos.19/26, 26/26, 32/26, 59/26)
Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate
Mr. T. Mohanta, Advocate
Mr. Harsh Vardhan, Advocate
(LPA No.40/2026)
---------
04/Dated: 18.03.2026
1. Heard the learned Advocate General for the appellants, Mr.
Indrajit Sinha, Mr. Kumar Harsh and Mr. Bhaskar Trivedi, learned
counsels, appearing for the contesting respondents.
2. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and
order dated 14.11.2025 made by the learned Single Judge holding
inter alia that the jurisdiction of the Ranchi Regional Development
Authority (appellants herein) will not extend over Panchayat Areas.
3. For reaching the above conclusion, the learned Single Judge
has inter alia relied on Part IX and Part IX-A of the Constitution brought
into force by the 73rd and 74th Amendments of 1992 and also to the
Notification published by the Department of Rural Development,
Government of Jharkhand, dated 12th of August 2017, stating that this
Notification has brought into force The Jharkhand Panchayat Land
Development (Map and Building Development) Rules, 2017. According
to us, this issue requires careful consideration, and therefore, these
appeals warrant admission. Therefore, we admit these appeals and
expedite their hearing.
4. Insofar as the interim relief is concerned, at the outset, we note
that a submission was made on behalf of the petitioners before the
learned Single Judge that the Notification dated 12th of August 2017
(Annexure 20) brought into force the Jharkhand Panchayat Land
Development (Map and Building Development) Rules, 2017. Further
submission was made that these rules had been framed by the State
Government in exercise of powers under Section 131 of the Jharkhand
Panchayat Raj Act, 2001, to provide for a procedure of a sanction of a
building plan/map in respect of a building which is to be constructed
over an area covered by the operation by the Jharkhand Panchayat
Raj Act, 2001.
5. The learned Single Judge has recorded that the respondents
have not disputed the above position. This means that this was one of
the reasons relied upon to reach the conclusion that the jurisdiction of
the Ranchi Regional Development Authority (appellants herein) will not
extend over Panchayat Areas.
6. The learned Advocate General submitted that there was no
question of raising any dispute because a bare reading of the
Notification dated 12th of August 2017 would show that the Rules
referred to therein were only "Draft Rules" published to invite
objections and suggestions. The Notification nowhere says that such
Rules had been brought into force. He submitted that such rules were
never brought into force, inter alia, because the mukhiyas or the
Panchayats do not even have the technical expertise to undertake
planning activities or to approve construction plans.
7. According to us, at least prima facie, the submission, which was
made on behalf of the petitioners in relation to "2017 Draft Rules" and
the attempt to pass off such "Draft Rules" as Rules in force, was quite
misconceived and misleading. In any event, since such Rules were
one of the considerations that prompted the learned Single Judge to
take the view that RRDA ceases to have any jurisdiction over the areas
covered by the operation under the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act,
2001, at least prima facie, this position may require a revisit.
8. Even the issue of application of the doctrine of "occupied field"
which has been invoked by the learned Single Judge would require a
further and detailed examination. At least prima facie, the scope of the
two legislations appears to be different.
9. In the meantime, if constructions and developments are
permitted in Panchayat Areas solely on the basis of permissions
issued by the Mukhiyas or even the Panchayat as a body, we think,
prima facie, that public interest might be a casualty. An irreversible
situation is likely to arise in which the parties, who propose to construct
or who construct based only on the permissions from the Mukhiyas or
the Panchyat, would claim equities.
10. The Learned Advocate General has contended that the
Panchayats do not have the technical expertise to approve building
construction plans. He has also contended that the effect of the
impugned judgment and order is to virtually strike down the provisions
of the law under which the RRDA came to be constituted or, in any
event, to efface the provisions of such enactment insofar as Panchayat
Areas are concerned. He submitted that, in terms of the assignment,
issues of constitutional validity are required to be addressed by the
Division Bench.
11. For all the above reasons, we are satisfied that a case has been
made out to stay the operation of the impugned judgment and order
dated 14.11.2025. Accordingly, we stay the operation of the impugned
judgment and order 14.11.2025, pending the disposal of these
appeals. However, we clarify that based on this stay, the RRDA should
not proceed with the demolition orders already made. The status quo
will have to be maintained. This means that where structures are
ordered to be sealed, the sealing will continue, but the RRDA will not
proceed with demolitions during the pendency of these appeals.
12. The learned counsel for the respondents in LPA No. 40 of 2026
submits that no demolition order has been made by the RRDA, but
only a notice to show cause has been issued to the respondents.
13. RRDA is granted liberty to proceed with such show cause
notices; however, if any adverse action is proposed, the same should
not be actually implemented without seeking leave of this Court.
14. The learned counsel for the respondents in LPA No. 59 of 2026
submits that the 6th respondent has expired, and he says that within
two weeks from today, he will furnish the details of legal
representatives of the 6th respondent to the learned counsel appearing
with the learned Advocate General on behalf of the appellants.
15. Necessary steps must be taken to bring such legal
representatives on record.
16. These LPAs are fixed for final hearing in the week commencing
from the 15th of June 2026.
17. The learned counsel for the parties are requested to provide
brief notes of their arguments, along with the decisions they propose to
rely upon, before the final hearing.
(M. S. Sonak, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
March 18, 2026
Manoj/ Sharda/Cp.2
Uploaded on 19.03.2026
