1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

L.P.A. No. 423 of 2014

Kishan Parasrampuria

…

…

…

…

…

Appellant

Versus

1. The Ranchi Municipal Corporation through the Chief Executive Officer,

having its office at Kuthcery Road, Ranchi, P.O. GPO, P.S. - Kotwali, District

– Ranchi.

2. The Chief Executive Officer, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, having its

office at Kurchery Road, Ranchi, P.O. GPO, P.S. - Kotwali, District – Ranchi.

3. The Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, having

its office at Kurchery Road, Ranchi, P.O. GPO, P.S. - Kotwali, District –

Ranchi.

4. Bishnu Prasad Lohia, son of Late Jwala Prasad Lohia, resident of Flat

No.105/106 “Panchwati”, Kanke Road, P.O. - University, P.S. - Gonda,

District – Ranchi.

…

…

…

…

…

Respondents

------

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH, CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. PATEL

-----

For the Appellant:

M/s. Rajiv Ranjan, Shresth Gautam, Shray

Mishra, Piyush Chitresh

For the Respondents:

M/s. R.R. Nath, Indrajit Sinha, Shresth Gautam,

Shray Mishra, Piyush Chitresh

------

05/Dated : 10

^th December, 2014

Per Virender Singh, CJ

1)

The instant appeal is at admission stage. We, however, intend to

dispose it of finally at this stage itself as learned counsel for both sides have

consented for it, the controversy otherwise being very short in nature.

2)

The appellant is the writ petitioner (for short “petitioner” only) and

running a business in the premises bearing Municipal Holding No.928 in

2

Ranchi Municipal Ward No.3 (new 22) in the district of Ranchi on a month-to-

month tenancy under respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 filed an application

before Ranchi Municipal Corporation (for short 'RMC') under Section 38 of the

Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 (for short 'Municipal Act') seeking an

appropriate order of demolition of the aforesaid premises occupied by the

petitioner. Chief Executive Officer, RMC, Ranchi thereafter passed an order of

demolition of the building on 20th May, 2014. Aggrieved of the said order, the

petitioner approached the Writ Court through the medium of W.P. (C) No.

2792 of 2014 seeking quashment of the said order inter alia on the ground

that no notice was served upon him and that Section 387(7) of the Municipal

Act provides that an order for demolition could be passed having regard to

the facts which includes repair of the building in question and that the

petitioner had specifically denied that the building was in dilapidated

condition and could be repaired also, therefore not a case of demolition. The

learned Writ Court, however, dealt the present case under the provisions of

Section 499 of the Municipal Act and observed that since the building had

become dangerous for habitation, therefore, even if no notice was issued to

the petitioner (occupier), that would not change the decision taken by the

respondent No.2 vide order dated 20th May, 2014 as the said order was

passed on the report prepared by the Engineers of the Municipal Corporation

who had visited the site and physically examined the site. It is in this factual

matrix, the writ petition filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed vide

impugned order dated 7th October, 2014. The petitioner being aggrieved of

the said order is once again before us through the medium of the instant

Letters Patent Appeal.

3)

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

4)

Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that

respondent No.4, who is owner of the premises, cannot be allowed to get the

petitioner evicted without following the due procedures of law. He submitted

3

that respondent No.4 had been pressurizing the petitioner to vacate the

premises which constrained him to file a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior

Division, Ranchi seeking grant of perpetual injunction restraining respondent

No.4 from inter