VISHAL PALSANIA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the notice dated 2.09.2015 issued under Sec. 3 of Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 ( in short 'Act, 1956') under the signature of the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur (respondent no. 2). It has been further prayed for quashing the order dated 03.10.2015 passed by the respondent no.2 in B.P.L.E Case No. 33 of 2015-16, whereby the petitioner has been directed to remove the encroachment within fifteen days. Further prayer has been made for quashing of the order dated 21.01.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, East Singhbhum (respondent no. 1) in BPLE Appeal No. 60 of 2015-16, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected and the order dated 03.10.2015 passed by the respondent no. 2 in B.P.L.E Case No. 33 of 2015-16 has been upheld.

(2.) The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the petitioner is in occupation of a piece of land measuring 80' X 50', Plot No. 3547, Ward No. 17, Khata No. 55 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'land in question') by virtue of an agreement to sale executed by one Kunti Mundari in the month of Feb., 201 The petitioner constructed a Pucca house over the said land and also took an electric connection from the electricity department. A notice dated 009.2015 was issued by the respondent no. 2 in the name of 'Palsania Cherry Garden' in purported exercise of power under section 3 of the Act, 1956, directing it to appear on 16.09.2015. Finally the respondent no.2 passed an order on 03.10.2015, holding that the construction of the petitioner has been made upon the government land. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal, being B.P.L.E Appeal No.60 of 2015-16, before the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, which was dismissed vide order dated 21.01.2016, holding that the land in question is recorded in the name of Anabad Bihar Sarkar (now Jharkhand Sarkar).

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that no notice under Sec. 6(2) of the Act, 1956 was served upon to the petitioner. It is further submitted that Kunti Mandari from whom the petitioner got the possession of the said land was in occupation of the land in question since 1982 i.e more than 30 years. Thus, she had acquired adverse possession over the said land. It is further submitted that the notice issued under section 3 of the Act, 1956 was vague in which no plot number was mentioned and as such the petitioner could not appear in the encroachment proceeding initiated by the respondent no.2. It is also submitted that the respondent no.1 did not provide any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before dismissing the appeal. The petitioner is a bonafide purchaser of the land in question and he is in possession over the same by making construction thereupon. Thus the petitioner cannot be said to be an encroacher of the land in question. It is wrong to say that the land in question is a public land, rather the same is raiyati land which has been purchased by the petitioner.