MUKESH KUMAR SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is taken up today through Video conferencing.

(2.) Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the land appertaining to Dag No. 605, Jamabandi No. 22, Mouza-Shaharkol, measuring an area of 8 bigha 14 kattha and 5 dhoor was recorded in the name of Marwari Rai in the last survey of record of rights. After demise of the recorded tenant, his only son namely, Dukhu Rai came in possession of the said land, who died leaving behind his only son namely, Jantri Rai. After the death of Jantri Rai, his widow namely, Reshmi Devi being exclusive owner of the same, gifted 03 kattha of the said land to the mother of the petitioner namely, Lal Mani Devi vide affidavit dtd. 16/3/2005. Since then, the petitioner and his mother Lal Mani Devi have been in possession of the said land and have constructed a residential house. The petitioner has annexed copies of the electricity bills to suggest that he along with his family has been in peaceful possession of the residential house constructed over the same without objection from any corner. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that Dag No. 605, Jamabandi No. 22, Mouza-Shararkol is a big chunk of land where altogether 53 persons are residing for several years by constructing residential houses. Reshmi Devi, heir of recorded raiyat being the exclusive owner of the land had also given no objection for the occupants of the land in question to the respondent no. 4 - the Circle Officer, Pakur on 28/1/2019 containing list of 53 persons (copies of which has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition). However, the respondent no. 3 initiated R.E.R. Case No. 05/2021-22 and without issuing any notice to the legal heir of recorded raiyat (Reshmi Devi), the mother of the petitioner or the petitioner, directed ejection of the petitioner from the said land under Sec. 42 of the Act, 1949 vide impugned order dtd. 7/6/2021.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner emphasises on the issue that the petitioner along with his family has been in possession of the said land since 2005 and hence, a valuable right has been created in his favour which cannot be taken by the authorities of the State without providing due opportunity of hearing. Since the impugned order has been passed by the respondent no. 3 without issuing any notice to the concerned parties including the petitioner, the same is violative of the principles of natural justice and therefore, deserves to be set-aside. It is also submitted that while passing the impugned order dtd. 7/6/2021, the respondent no. 3 relied upon the enquiry report submitted by the respondent no.4 vide letter no. 04 dtd. 2/6/2021, however, during the said enquiry also, the petitioner was not noticed and the enquiry report was prepared behind his back.