SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND - PRINCIPAL BENCH JHARKHAND
ANJAN GOPE – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND – Respondent
WPC 6071/2018



Advocates:
['CHANDRAJIT MUKHERJEE', '', 'ANJANI KUMAR', 'KUMAR BASANT NARAYAN', 'PUJA KUMARI', 'SHIVAM UTKARSH SAHAY', 'VIKASH KISHORE PRASAD']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P. (C) No.6071 of 2018

With

I.A. No.410 of 2019

-----

1. Anjan Gope

2. Chhotu Gope @ Chhutu Gope

3. Chatak Gope

.......... Petitioners.

-Versus-

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum.

3. Sub Divisional Officer, Jamshedpur.

.......... Respondents.

-----

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

-----

For the Petitioners :

Mr. A. K. Das, Advocate

For the State

:

A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-I

-----

Order No.08

Date: 07.09.2021

1.

This case is taken up through video conferencing.

2.

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon

the respondent authorities to show cause as to why and under what

authority they have demolished the boundary wall erected over a piece

of land, appertaining to Khata no.55, plot no.937, ward no.17,

measuring an area of 0.25 hectare, under Jamshedpur Notified Area

Committee without initiating any proceeding. Further prayer has been

made for issuance of direction upon the respondents, restraining them

from interfering with the possession of the petitioners over the

aforesaid land. The petitioners have also prayed for issuance of

direction upon the respondent authorities to pay them compensation

for the damages caused due to demolition of the part of the boundary

wall as also for causinjg harassment to them.

3.

Mr. A. K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the

family of the petitioners have been in peaceful possession over the

land, appertaining to Khata no.55, plot no.937, ward no.17, measuring

an area of 0.25 hectare, under Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee,

District East Singhbhum. The possession of the petitioners’ ancestor

has been recorded in the original as well as revisional survey. The copy

of the Khatiyan annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition suggests

that an unauthorized occupation of the petitioners’ father, namely,

Sahdeo Gaud has been shown over the said land since 1986, which,

as per the Khatiyan, was recorded in the name of Anabad Bihar Sarkar.

In the year 1992, TISCO had filed an application under Section 83 of

the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 against the father of the

-2-

petitioners (since deceased), which was registered as Case no.106 of

1992-93, in the court of Assistant Settlement Officer, Jamshedpur. The

aforesaid application was finally rejected vide order dated 5th October,

1993, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ

petition. It is further submitted that suddenly on 18th November, 2018,

the respondent authorities came over the said land with heavy earth

movers and demolished the boundary wall of the petitioners, however,

the house standing over the said land could not be demolished by the

respondent authorities due to intervention of local residents. It is also

submitted that the family members of the petitioners have been in

possession of the said land for about hundred years and have thereby

perfected their title over the same by way of adverse possession. The

respondent authorities, therefore, cannot forcibly evict the petitioners

from the said land without taking due recourse of law.

4.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, stating,

inter alia that as per the survey conducted in the year 1995, Khata

no.55, plot no.937, ward no.17 under Jamshedpur Notified Area

Committee, Jamshedpur has been found recorded in the name of

Anabad Bihar Sarkar whereas TISCO has been shown as “Vasra No.1”,

and Sahadeo Gaud has been shown as illegal occupant, who is not the

ancestor of the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners are in illegal

possession of the said land. It has, however, been stated in the counter

affidavit that there was no boundary wall over the said land and the

respondents have never used any bulldozer to demolish any such

structure erected over the same. The respondents have also no

knowledge ab

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top