Jharkhand HC Orders State To Pay Rs 5 Lakhs Compensation For Illegal Demolition Of Shops And Additional Rs 25,000 For Mental Agony Of Shop Owner

It is definitely in the fitness of things and is also most reassuring, most refreshing and most rejuvenating to note that the Jharkhand High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Rajendra Prasad Sahu @ Rajendra Prasad Shaundik vs State of Jharkhand and Others in W.P.(C) No. 2628 of 2011 and cited in 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 102 that was finally pronounced on 27.06.2024 has ordered the State Government of Jharkhand to pay Rs 5 lakhs in compensation for illegally demolishing a privately owned building that housed five shops. Additionally, the Court has also further directed the State to pay Rs 25,000 for the mental pain and agony that was suffered by the shop owner due to the State’s high-handed actions. Very rightly so!

By all accounts, there has to be zero tolerance for bulldozing of law by bulldozers. It is the bounden duty of all the High Courts and even of the Supreme Court to not take such despicable, dastardly and destructive acts of the State simply just lying down with innocent citizens in front row bearing the maximum brunt of it and must come down definitely most heavily on all such State Governments who indulge in merciless bulldozing by bulldozers without any lawful reason. If this is not done most strictly as we see the Jharkhand High Court doing in this leading case so commendably, it is a no-brainer that the State Governments will then certainly start considering themselves above the law and start crushing people’s fundamental rights most mercilessly without any remorse! Can this be ever permitted to happen with impunity?

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi of Jharkhand High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “This matter was assigned to this Bench and accordingly, this matter was heard.”

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 3 that, “Prayer in this petition is made for declaring that the respondent authorities have got no jurisdiction or authority under the law to forcibly and illegally demolish/bulldoze the building premises of the petitioner, which were situated on the raiyati lands of the petitioner comprised within Plot No. 296 under Khata No. 36 measuring an area of 5 decimal of Mouza – Chaur, District – Chatra. Further prayer is made for order or direction holding that the demolition/bulldozing the five shops of the petitioner alongwith six shutters on 29.4.2011 without initiating any proceeding and without there being any decree or order of any court of competent jurisdiction or authority constituted under any law was wholly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India. Further prayer is made for issuance of order or direction upon the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the said properties and to desist/refrain from acting in a manner unknown to law and lastly it has been prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to suitably compensate petitioner for the illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional action of the respondents in demolishing the five shops fitted with six shutters without following the due procedure provided by law.”

Do note, the Bench notes in para 15 that, “In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties the Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that Annexure-1 is a document dated 5.1.1973 which is registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner with regard to purchase of 5 decimal of lands situated within Plot No. 296 under Khata No. 36 of Village – Chaur, Thana No. 190 in the district of Chatra. Annexure-2 is the document which suggests that the said land was mutated in favour of the petitioner in Mutation Case No. 9/1973-74 and the rent receipt is contained in Annexure-3. The cancellation order of mutation dated 26.8.1988 was challenged by the petitioner before the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh in Appeal No. 9/1989 and the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh has set the order dated 26.8.1988 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Chatra and the petitioner was again started paying the rent thereafter. The name of the petitioner was recorded in Chatra Municipality being Holding No. 441 within Ward No. 3. When the authority stopped issuing the rent receipt petitioner made a representation dated 7.12.2005 to the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra thereafter, the petitioner received a notice dated 18.2.2006 from the Court of the Circle Officer, Chatra in Misc. Case No. 45/2005-06 calling upon the petitioner to appear with all documents relating to the concerned plot and inspite of that by order dated 23.5.2006 the Circle Officer recommended for cancellation of running Jamabandi in favour of the petitioner thereafter the petitioner moved before this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 4426/2006 which was disposed of by order dated 21.11.2006 considering that since no final order has been passed, therefore, it was not desirable to interfere at this stage. The petitioner contested the matter before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chatra in Misc Case No. 1/2007-08 which was registered on the basis of recommendation of the Circle Officer. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chatra by order 12.6.2007 set aside the order of the Circle Officer, holding that the Jamabandi of the petitioner shall continue and the aggrieved party, if any, may seek remedy before the civil court contained in Annexure-8. In the aforesaid order the Land Reforms Deputy Collector has discussed the entire facts which has been noted above in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent State. Thus, it is crystal clear that how the land in question has come in the possession of the petitioner. Not even a single chit of paper was filed by the State in the counter affidavit as well as supplementary counter affidavit filed on the direction of this Court later on to the effect that the said land was acquired by the government or it was in the possession of the Government.”

Be it noted, the Bench then notes in para 16 that, “The supplementary affidavit dated 10.09.2012 has been filed by the petitioner wherein it is disclosed in para 5 that the petitioner applied under the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of the land alleged to be acquired under Declaration No. 03/380 F.R. dated 11.12.1914. The Public Information Officer replied vide Information No. 257/L.A. dated 24.08.2012 from which it was informed that there are no details available on record for which the information was sought. That document was brought on record by way of the said supplementary affidavit. This document itself strengthens the case of the petitioner that there is no record before the Government to prove that the said land was acquired by the Government.”

Quite significantly, the Bench points out in para 19 that, “In view of above two paragraphs of the supplementary counter affidavit filed on 24.01.2024, it is crystal clear that the Government is having no record and it was asserted that the order passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector in Misc Case No.01/2007-08 is said to have no jurisdiction. On query by this Court as to whether that order was challenged by the State or it was rectified or not the answer was made by the learned counsel for the State that the order was not challenged and no further action has been taken in view of that statement. It is crystal clear that there is no document and the mutation order was attained finality by the respondent-State. The registered deed was also not challenged by any of the party as well as State. In the order dated 12.06.2007 the Land Reforms Deputy Collector clearly held that jamabandi of the petitioner still continued and the aggrieved party if any, has remedy for the Civil Court, inspite of that the State has not taken any action and filed any suit about the claim of the state as asserted in the argument as well as the counter affidavit. Thus, this is an admitted position that land in question was in possession and in favour of the petitioner. The documents on record clearly suggest that five shops were constructed after obtaining sanction from the Chatra Municipality.”

It is worthwhile to mention that the Bench notes in para 20 that, “It is well known that no construction is being allowed in absence of any valid right, title and interest which further strengthens the case of the petitioner. It is further an admitted position that there is no show cause notice or even a proceeding was initiated against the petitioner with regard to said dispute. No document has been brought on record by way of counter affidavit as well as supplementary counter affidavit by the State about the said possession and this fact clearly established that in absence of any proceeding the said order was passed. With regard to maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if any valid right of a person without following the due process of law is jeopardized the writ court cannot be a spectator and this aspect of the matter was considered in the case of Lata Soni (supra) on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.”

Needless to say, the Bench states in para 21 that, “Since the aforesaid fact the accusation of land and demolition of shops belonging to the petitioner without adhering to established procedure as laid down in other laws, the petitioner is entitled to have remedy under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.”

Most fundamentally, we see that the Bench underscores in para 24 that, “The right to property is no longer a fundamental right, but it is still a constitutional right and a human right, and no person shall be deprived of his property save in accordance with law. Even though the right to property is no longer a fundamental right and was never a natural right, it has to be accepted that without the right to property, other rights become illusory. The protection of Article 300A of the Constitution of India is available to any person including a legal or juristic person and is not confined only to a citizen. Reference may be made to the case of Dharam Dutt Vs. Union of India reported in (2004) 1 SCC 712.”

Most significantly, the Bench mandates in para 33 postulating that, “In view of the above now it is established that in such a circumstance the action of the authority in demolishing the shops is nothing but totally illegal, arbitrary and whimsical. It is well settled that the State or its authorities are subject to “etat de droit”, i.e. the State is submitted to the law which implies that all actions of the State or its authority and officials must be carried out subject to the constitution and within the limits set by the law. In other words the State is to obey the law. It is equally well settled that executive or administrative order which involves civil consequences must be made in conformity with the rule of natural justice, which at least requires notice and opportunity of hearing to the person affected thereby.”

Most laudably, the Bench directs in para 34 expounding that, “This Court is having it opinion, therefore, the action of the authority was illegal and violative of all principles of rule of law which has certainly caused mental pain and injury to the petitioner besides material damages to his property. Such action of the authority must be deprecated. As such this Court comes to the conclusion that it is a fit case where an appropriate writ should be issued directing the respondent authority to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000,00/- being the cost of construction at that point of time. However, if the direction is issued to reconstruct the said demolition the cost will be much higher.”

Adding more to it, the Bench also directs in para 35 that, “The respondent authority is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- by way of compensation for the mental pain and agony suffered to the petitioner on account of illegal act and high-handedness of the respondent authority.”

For clarity, the Bench clarifies in para 36 stating that, “It is made clear that aforesaid direction of cost of construction and compensation for mental pain shall be complied by the State through the respondent nos. 2 and 3 within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.”

It is further clarified in para 37 adding that, “It is open to the respondent state to fix the liability on the erring officials and recover the same from the said officer however, this will be done by the respondent-State after complying the aforesaid directions.”

Finally, the Bench then concludes by directing in para 38 that, “This writ petition is allowed and disposed of in terms of aforesaid direction. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of.”

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,

s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi,

A 82, Defence Enclave,

Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,

Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.