LAWS(JHAR)-2010-2-198

GOPAL DAS Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On February 17, 2010
GOPAL DAS Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In compliance with the order dated-06.01.2010, the Respondent No. 2, namely, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khunti-cum-Chairman, Khunti Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Khunti, Ranchi. has appeared in person today. A showcause reply has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 2.

(2.) The declarations as contained in the show-cause replies as also in the counter affidavit of the Respondents is that contrary to the claim of the petitioner, no portion of the petitioner's shop was ever demolished and neither was any order passed by the Respondent No. 2 for demolition of any portion of the petitioner's shop.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 explains that as a matter of fact a large number of shop-keepers were found to have encroached upon various portion of the public land. The petitioner was also found to have encroached upon a portion of the public land and against him and several others, proceedings under the Public Land Encroachment Act, were initiated and since such proceedings were pending, no action was ever taken by the administrative authorities or by the Respondents-Agricultural Produce Market Committee, to demolish or remove any of such encroachments at all. Learned counsel submits that the contention of the petitioner that a portion of the roof of his shop was demolished, is totally incorrect, misleading and intentionally made with mala fide motives. Learned counsel adds further that a few others shop keepers had earlier filed a writ application praying for restraining the Respondents-authorities from forcibly evicting the shop-keepers from their respective occupied premises and they had obtained orders from this Court, whereby the concerned authorities of the Respondents were directed not to evict forcibly and to act only in accordance with law. As it appears, the petitioner also was prompted to file this writ application for obtaining the same relief. However, it appears that in order to cause prejudice to the Respondents, the petitioner has made such false and misleading statements.