MANOJ KUMAR SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 07.06.2018 passed by the respondent no. 4 -Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi in E.C Case No. 03 of 2018, whereby the petitioners have been directed to vacate the premises gifted to the Ranchi Municipal Corporation (RMC) for road widening.

(2.) The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that one Kripa Shankar Jaiswal had entered into two different agreement for sale dated 25.01.1986 with Most. Kausalya Devi, the mother of the petitioner no. 1 and Sushila Devi, the mother of the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 to sell the part of the land under Khata No. 27, Plot No. 754,

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as they have not been given any opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order. It is further submitted that the petitioners are not in illegal occupation of the said land, rather they had been put in symbolic possession of the same by virtue of the agreement for sale. It is further submitted that the petitioners have constructed the houses upon their respective part of the land and are residing therein. It is further submitted that the petitioners had also filed suits for specific performance and after dismissal of the same by the original court, the appeals preferred by the petitioners are still pending. It is also submitted that the dispute relating to the said land being still sub-judice before the appellate court, the Municipal Commissioner had no authority to pass the order of eviction against the petitioners. It is further submitted that the proceeding initiated against the petitioners was an encroachment proceedings, however, the provisions of the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Public land Encroachment Act, 1956 were not followed while passing the orders against them. The petitioners were also not given sufficient time to prefer appeal against the impugned order as the copy of the order dated 07.06.2018 was made available to them on 09.06.2018, which was a Saturday and on Monday morning i.e., 11.06.2018, the officers of the Ranchi Municipal Council, Ranchi sealed the shop of the petitioners, wherein perishable goods are lying, causing irreparable loss and injuries to the petitioners. It is further submitted that the matter is purely a civil dispute which can only be decided by a competent civil court and thus, the order passed by the Municipal Commissioner is without any jurisdiction. It is also submitted that the petitioners have instituted the suits for specific performance in the year 2015 itself, whereas the notice was issued by the order of Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi in the year 2018. Moreover, the appeals preferred by the petitioners were pending before the appellate court when the notice was issued under the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 and, therefore, the order dated 07.06.2018 as well as the entire proceeding of EC Case No. 3 of 2018 are liable to be quashed and set-aside.