BABAN CHOUBEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By Court Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed as Public Interest Litigation before this Court on 20.11.2009 alleging that Petitioner is a respected persons and is not even a primary member of a political party but in the name and style of Rashtriya Hind Sena raises the grievances of citizen facing social atrocities. The Petitioner's contention in the writ petition is that the Respondent M/s. Patliputra Heritage Homes Pvt. Ltd. has started raising construction over a land of Khata No. 63 Plot No. 623 at Mauza Tupudana P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi without approval of map of said building obtained from Ranchi Regional Development Authority (in short R.R.D.A.). It is submitted that the said plot is situated in the area surrounded by about 200 houses and the residents of those houses will suffer a great loss because of this construction sought to be raised without approval of map from the R.R.D.A. This writ petition was filed before this Court, as stated above, on 20.11.2009 and it remained pending as the defects were not removed and it was listed in the Court on 21.06.2010 obviously for admission after removal of the defects but it was got adjourned then again it was got adjourned on 15.09.2010 and on 30.09.2010 it was brought to the notice of this Court that R.R.D.A. has granted post facto sanction of the building plan obviously of Respondent No. 4. This Court then directed the R.R.D.A. to explain their stand as to under what circumstances they have first rejected the application of the plan seeking permission to raise construction and, subsequently, they took the stand that this plan can be sanctioned. On 16.12.2010 this Court found that R.R.D.A. and Ranchi Municipal Corporation (in short R.M.C.) are at logger head in deciding their area of operation and in relation to the case in hand, R.M.C. had already rejected permission to raise construction and that too on the plea that the land in question is agricultural land and no such sanction can be granted whereas R.R.D.A. has granted sanction. This Court observed that it is not the solitary plan and huge unplanned constructions are coming up in the city. Therefore, the State Government was directed to intervene in the matter and decide the areas of operation of both the agencies, i.e. R.R.D.A. and R.M.C. Then on 07.01.2011 this Court observed that stand taken by the R.R.D.A. is in conflict with the direction of the State Government as stated in the affidavit of the State Government and again directed the State Government to look into the matter and see that the stand taken by the R.R.D.A. in Court is in contradiction with the stand of the State Government and such stand may not be taken in future. Then on 14.03.2011 it was noticed that the State Government has filed the clarification and then on 18.03.2011 it was submitted that State is perusing the Government records regarding earlier notifications and they will clarify it from the State of Bihar also because the earlier orders were passed by the State of Bihar.

(3.) In the background of these facts and orders referred above, this matter has come up for hearing today before us.