High CourtsSingle Bench(2016) 03 JH CK 0065

Kharangajhar Bazar Vikas Samiti, East Singhbhum vs The State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 10 March 2016 · Citation: (2016) 4 AIRJharR 144

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mr. Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.
RESULT
Disposed Off
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 1013 of 2014

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 377 words

Mr. Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.—I.A. No. 6516/2015

Heard counsel for the parties.

2.

Petitioner is admittedly an Association of shop owners claiming to be functioning continuously since 1981 at Kharangajhar Bazar under East Singhbhum district. Petitioner has sought to raise the grievances of individual members against the notices of eviction, apprehending coercive steps of forceful dispossession from the shop they have constructed long back. Admittedly, respondent also do not recognise the petitioner Association in any such encroachment proceeding, as is evident from the enclosed notices issued earlier under section 33 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 and subsequently under Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956.

3.

Respondents in their counter affidavit, have enclosed notice under section 6(2) of Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 issued in individual cases to such persons.

4.

Brief facts referred to herein-above therefore, give the impression that the petitioner claiming itself to be an Association of shop owners, cannot agitate any individual grievances relating to removal of encroachment over the public land against individual shop owners said to be engaged in business in Kharangajhar Bazar.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in such view of the matter, seeks a liberty to enable the individual notice of Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 to approach the Appellate Forum provided under the Act of 1956 in order to defend themselves by raising all available grounds of law and facts. It is submitted that till that date, no coercive steps be allowed to be taken.

6.

In view of the aforesaid facts discussed and submissions recorded, it is felt appropriate that the writ petition be allowed to be withdrawn. The individual notice who have been proceeded against under the BPLE Act, 1956, would approach the Appellate Authority within a period of three weeks. In that case, respondent should not take coercive steps for their eviction in the aforesaid period. Let it be made clear that observations made herein-above, are only for the purposes of coming to a view on the entertain-ability of the writ petition and it would not prejudice the case of either of the parties in any such proceedings before the Appellate Forum or any other court of law. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed to be withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. I.A. is closed.