MANOJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the notice dtd. 13/7/2022 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) issued under Sec. 6(2) of the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (in short, "the Act, 1956") by the Collector under the Act, 1956-cum-Circle Officer, Jamshedpur (the respondent No.3) in J.P.L.E. Case No. 65 of 2021-22 whereby the nephew of the petitioner, namely, Shailesh Kumar Singh (according to the petitioner, the said notice has mistakenly been issued to his nephew, namely, Shailesh Kumar Singh) has been directed to remove encroachment from the land appertaining to Khata No. 1075, Plot Nos. 1378 and 1379, Mouza-Ghagidih, Thana No. 1169, P.S-Bagbera, District- East Singhbhum, measuring an area of 25' x 15' (hereinafter to be referred as "the said land") as well as to quash/set aside the entire proceeding of J.P.L.E. Case No. 65 of 2021-22.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. The primary argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent No.3 while passing the impugned notice dtd. 13/7/2022, did not provide ample opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to satisfy that he has raiyati right over the said land and the same cannot be said to be public land so as to initiate a proceeding under the provisions of the Act, 1956.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, sworn by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Dhalbhum, East Singhbhum, contesting the writ petition on merit wherein the order sheets of only two dates i.e. of 31/12/2021 and 13/7/2022 have been annexed. The order dtd. 31/12/2021 suggests that on the said date, J.P.L.E. Case No. 65/2021-22 was initiated and a notice under Sec. 3 of the Act, 1956 was issued to one Shailesh Kr. Singh, who according to the petitioner, is his nephew. The case was ordered to be listed again on 15/1/2022. The contention of the petitioner is that he appeared on the said date i.e. 15/1/2022 and filed an application seeking 30 days' time to arrange the required documents so as to file reply to the said notice. The said fact appears to be true as the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 themselves have annexed a copy of the application dtd. 15/1/2022 filed by the petitioner in J.P.L.E. Case No. 65/2021-22 as Annexure-C/1 to the said counter affidavit. Since the order sheets of only two dates i.e. of 31/12/2021 and 13/7/2022 (the impugned) have been annexed with the said counter affidavit, it can be inferred that after 15/1/2022 i.e. the date on which the petitioner had requested the respondent No.3 to grant 30 days' time to file reply to the notice issued under Sec. 3 of the Act, 1956, no further opportunity was given to the petitioner to bring on record the required documents so as to prove his raiyati right over the said land. Perusal of the impugned notice dtd. 13/7/2022 also suggests that the respondent No.3 did not provide further opportunity to the petitioner to bring on record the relevant documents.