MD. HAKIM ANSARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case is taken up through Video Conferencing. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the notice dtd. 1/7/2021 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No.4 under Sec. 3 of the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Public Land Encroachment, Act, 1956 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1956'] whereby the petitioner No.1 has been called upon to appear before the said respondent on 16/7/2021 and to file show cause as to why the encroachment to the extent of 2232 sq. ft. of public land appertaining to Plot No. 163, Khata No. 108, Village-Koshiyara, P.S-Haidar Nagar, Thana No. 303, District-Palamau, measuring an area of 0.79 Acre be not removed as the petitioner No.1 has no concern with the said land, rather he is in occupation of Plot No. 151 (old Plot No. 297), Khata No. 108 and the respondent No.4 has illegally issued the said notice to him with intention to grab the portion of his Raiyati land for construction of approach road of a school.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner No.2 is in possession of 14 Decimals of the land under Khata No. 108, Plot No. 151, Village- Koshiyara, which was earlier purchased by the petitioner No.1 from the Khatiyani Raiyat-Seikh Jiyaul Hasan Siddique, son of Seikh Md. Sadique by virtue of registered sale-deed No.38 dtd. 7/1/2002. The petitioner No.1 subsequently sold the said land to his son-the petitioner No.2 by virtue of registered sale-deed No. 90 dtd. 12/1/2011, which was also mutated in favour of the petitioner No.2 vide Mutation Case No. 114/2012-13 and thereafter the rent receipts were also issued in the name of the petitioner No.2. Since then the petitioner No.2 has been in peaceful possession of the said land by constructing a residential house over the same. The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that though the petitioner No.2 has been in peaceful possession of Plot No. 151, Khata No. 108, which is a Raiyati land, yet by way of issuing the impugned notice dtd. 1/7/2021 relating to Plot No. 163 mentioning the name of the petitioner No.1, the respondent No.4 is trying to dispossess the petitioner No.2 from the said land for constructing approach road of a school. It is also submitted that pursuant to the impugned notice dtd. 1/7/2021, the petitioner No.2 has already submitted his reply before the respondent No.4 stating the aforesaid facts, however, no final decision has been taken by the respondent No.4 in this regard. Under the said circumstance, the petitioner No.2 has apprehension of his dispossession from the said land at the instance of the respondent No.4.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner No.2 has already submitted his reply pursuant to the impugned notice dtd. 1/7/2021 issued by the respondent No.4 under Sec. 3 of the Act, 1956, without entering into the merit of the case, the respondent No.4 is directed to pass final order under Sec. 6 of the Act, 1956 after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners/their representatives on duly considering the reply submitted by the petitioner No.2 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.