IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
Sonu Pascal Ekka – Petitioner
Versus
The Governor, through its Principal Secretary – Respondent
W.P. (C) Nos. 4907, 4953 of 2021
Decided On : 31-03-2022
Municipal Corporation - Land Dispute - Bihar Municipal Act, 1922, Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 - The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging notices issued by the Municipal Corporation for producing documents related to land encroachment. The court held that the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 is applicable in the District of Ranchi and that the existing laws relating to State Municipalities, which were in existence prior to the 74th Amendment of the Constitution of India and were not inconsistent with the provisions of Part IX-A of the Constitution, were allowed to operate for a specified period by virtue of Article 243-ZF. The court also emphasized the need for the petitioners to claim their title over the land before a competent civil court.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitions were filed to set aside notices issued by the Municipal Corporation calling for documents related to land encroachment and challenging a public notice for removal of alleged encroachment. The petitioners claimed that the land was not urban or municipal area and that the Municipal Corporation had no legal existence in Ranchi due to its scheduled area status.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petitions, stating that the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 is applicable in the District of Ranchi and that the existing laws relating to State Municipalities were allowed to operate for a specified period. The court also emphasized the need for the petitioners to claim their title over the land before a competent civil court.
Issues: The main contention was the applicability of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 in the District of Ranchi and the legality of the notices issued by the Municipal Corporation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 is applicable in the District of Ranchi and that the existing laws relating to State Municipalities were allowed to operate for a specified period. The court emphasized the need for the petitioners to claim their title over the land before a competent civil court.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, and the petitioners were advised to claim their title over the land before a competent civil court.
ORDER :
1. The present writ petitions were initially filed for setting aside the notices as contained in letter nos. 1369 (iii) and 1369 (ii) both dated 25.10.2021 (Annexure-1 to the respective writ petitions) issued by the Assistant Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation (RMC), Ranchi (the respondent no. 7) calling upon the concerned persons to submit the required documents relating to their respective land appertaining to Mouza-Bara Ghaghra, Thana No. 221, Khata No. 328, plot nos. 57 and 58 before the said authority with further prayer to issue direction upon the concerned respondents to stop collection of holding tax/municipal tax and any other taxes imposed by the respondent-RMC, Ranchi from village Bara Ghaghra, Ranchi. The petitioners also prayed for declaration that village Bara Ghaghra cannot be said to be urban area or municipal area as the same is situated in the scheduled area of Ranchi district as well as for directing the concerned respondents to repay the holding tax/municipal tax and other taxes collected from the villagers of Bara Ghaghra.
2. During pendency of the present writ petitions, a public notice as contained in letter no. 1585 dated 23.12.2021 was issued by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, RMC, Ranchi whereby three persons namely Birsa Oraon, Sushma Ekka (mother of the petitioner of W.P. (C) No. 4907 of 2021) and Suresh Tirkey-petitioner of W.P. (C) No. 4953 of 2021 were directed to remove the alleged encroachment from the land in question by vacating the same within 72 hours failing which, the said encroachment was to be removed forcibly and the expenses incurred on the same was to be be realised from them as the said land were given on lease by the respondent-RMC for the purpose of construction of Apollo hospital. The petitioners also challenged the said general notice and prayed for staying the operation of the same. This Court, vide order dated 26.12.2021, stayed the operation of the notice as contained in letter no. 1585 dated 23.12.2021.
3. The claim of the petitioner of W.P. (C) No. 4907 of 2021 is that the land appertaining to Khata No. 73, plot No. 148, Khewat No. 1, Pargana-Khukhra of Mouza-Bara Ghaghra No. 221, Thana-Ranchi measuring an area of 0.73 acre was recorded in cadastral survey record of rights in the name of Budhuwa Oraon who was the ancestor of the petitioner. The petitioner being successor of the recorded tenant has been enjoying khas possession of the said land and has been residing in the house constructed over the same. The respondent no. 7 issued impugned notice as contained in letter no. 1369 (iii) dated 25.10.2021 in the name of Sabhal Oraon (ancestor of the petitioner-Sonu Pascal Ekka) directing him to submit the required documents relating to his land before the said authority and pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted representation dated 29.10.2021 claiming that the respondent-RMC has no legal existence in Ranchi since 01.06.1993 in view of Article 243-ZC of Part-IX-A of the Constitution of India as Ranchi District has been declared Scheduled Area and therefore as per Article 244(1), the provisions of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India will apply to the administration and control of the said area.
4. The claim of the petitioner of W.P. (C) No. 4953 of 2021 is that the land appertaining to Khata No. 39, plot No. 151, Khewat No. 1, Pargana-Khukhra of Mouza-Bara Ghaghra No. 221, Thana-Ranchi measuring an area of 76 decimals was recorded in the cadastral survey record of rights in the name of Barka Tutang Oraon (ancestor of the petitioner-Suresh Tirkey) and he remained in khas possession of the same. After his death, the successors of the recorded tenant including the petitioners have enjoyed the said land and are residing in the house situated over the same. The respondent no. 7 issued the impugned notice as contained in letter no. 1369(ii) dated 25.10.2021 in the name of deceased father of the petitioner namely Kanhu Tirkey. In pursuance of th
Bondu Ramaswamy vs. Bangalore Development Authority
Debashish Soren vs. State of Jharkhand
Ram Kirpal Bhagat and Others vs. State of Bihar
Sundargharh Zilla Adivasi Advocates Association and Others vs. State of Odisha and Others
The applicability of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 in the District of Ranchi and the allowance for existing laws relating to State Municipalities to operate for a specified period.
The notifications for municipal formation and alteration complied with constitutional mandates and statutory requirements, and the principles of natural justice were not violated.
The provisions of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 shall have no application in respect of the areas to which the provisions of the Municipal Act are applied.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for strong documentary evidence to prove continuous possession and khatedari rights over the land, and the significance of concurre....
The court emphasized the discretion of the State Government to declare its intention to specify an area as a larger urban area, medium urban area, or transitional area, and the mandatory nature of th....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.