ANJAN GOPE Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(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 Sec. 83 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 against the father of the 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 dtd. 5/10/1993, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. It is further submitted that suddenly on 18/11/2018, 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.