Ajay Kumar Sahu and Another vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

Aparesh Kumar Singh

Heard learned counsel for the parties. In view of the subsequent development brought on record, it appears that although, this writ application was preferred for a number of relief (s), petitioners would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondent authorities specifically respondent nos. 3 to 6 restraining them from taking action in the matter of removal of encroachment over the land in question covered by the Notification dated 1st July 1955 u/s 29 of the Indian Forest Act, so long the appropriate proceeding under the provisions of B.P.L.E. Act, 1956 are not concluded either away.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a mere perusal of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 3 to 6 specifically the order of the Circle Officer contained at Annexure-C, would indicate that the Circle Officer, Burmu Circle, Ranchi has recommended that apart from an area of 3.18 acre of land, proceedings for removal of encroachment could be undertaken in respect of remaining portion of 7.27 acres of lands on plot no. 160 and 0.56 acres of land on plot no. 356 of Mouza Bishrampur against the petitioners. The reason for excluding 3.18 acres of land has been indicated in the said order stating that the said piece of land has been mutated in Misc No. 4/1977-78 by the Circle Officer of the concerned circle and thereafter, rent receipts have also been issued in favour of the petitioners.

Counsel for the respondents submits that proceedings in respect of removal of encroachment of entire piece of land were initiated before the competent authority under B.P.L.E. Act, 1956 and thereafter, an appeal was also preferred by the respondent CCL being Misc. Appeal No. 20R-15/2005-06 wherein the petitioners have also participated.

From the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the petitioners have initially approached this court on the apprehension that the respondents 3 to 6 would take coercive steps against them by removing encroachment over the land in question belonging to the said Mouza covered under the notification of 1955. however, from the pleadings of the parties, it appears that the appropriate proceeding under the relevant provisions of B.P.L.E. Act, 1956 have also been pursued wherein appeal was also preferred by the respondent authorities of CCL and the entire matter was under consideration of the Appellate Authority. In that view of the matter, it is apparent that the apprehension of the petitioners relating to taking of coercive and forceful eviction from the said land, is misconceived. However, it goes without saying that any coercive steps which may be required under the provisions of B.P.L.E. Act could only be taken pursuant to the final outcome of the proceedings initiated under the B.P.L.E. Act, 1956 in respect of the land in question against the petitioners.

With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is disposed of.