2025:JHHC:28341 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.740 of 2022 .... 1. Govind Krishna Verma, aged about 52 years, S/o Lal Mohan Prasad, Resident of behind Basant Mistan Bhandar Bekarbandh, P.O.+P.S.-Bekarbandh District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 2. Sanjeev Kumar, aged about 55 years S/o Rambrat Sharma, Resident of Flat No.B-1, Ekant Apartment, Kali Mandir Road, Dhanbad, P.O.+P.S.-Bekarand District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 3. Deepak Kumar Ruia, aged about 52 years, S/o Laxman Prasad Kanodia, Resident of B-19, Chandra Vihar Colony, Dhaiya Road, P.O.+P.S.- and District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 4. Umesh Kumar Verma aged about 49 years, son of Baleshwar Prasad Verma, Resident of Kendua Bazar, P.O. and P.S.-Kunsunda, District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 5. Nilgiri Shoundik, Aged about 67 years, Son of Late Hari Kishan Shoundik, Residing near Government School, Chatatand Bazar, P.O. and P.S.-Kunsunda, District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 6. Md Masood Alam, aged about 54 years, son of Md. Muhibuddin, Resident of City Colony, New Azad Nagar, Bye pass Road, Road No.1, P.O. and P.S.- Tiadaha, District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 7. Ravi Shankar Prasad, aged about 51 years, son of Sachita Nand Prasad, Resident of Surya vihar Colony, opposite CMRI gate, Bartand, P.O.+P.S.-and District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 8. Shankar Saw, aged about 49 years, son of Janki Saw, resident of Vicky Foods Corner, Bartand, P.O.+P.S. and District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 9. Balmukund Singh, aged about 52, son of Banaras Singh, Resident of 300 A/R, Devi Niwas, Surya Vihar Colony, CMRI Main gate, P.O.+P.S.-and District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 10. Dinesh Kumar Gupta, aged about 55 years, son of Moti Lal Gupta, Resident of plot No.LIG 340, Housing Colony, Bartand, P.O.+P.S. and District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 11. Pushpanjali Gupta, aged about 58 years, wide of Suresh Kumar Gupta, Resident of house no.74. Lower Rajbari Road, Jharia, P.O. and P.S.-Jharia, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 12. Manoj Kumar Arora, aged about 59 years, son of Shyam Sundar Arora, Resident of shop No.8, Janta Market, Bartand, P.O.+P.S. and District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 13. Gautam Arora, aged about 52 years, son of Shyam Sundar Arora, Resident of B/23, Chandra Vihar Colony, Dahiya, P.O.+P.S. and District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 14. Nishant Kumar Gupta, aged about 32 years, son of Late Sadanand Prasad Gupta, Resident of Kendua Chhatartand Bazaar, Thakur Bari, P.O. and P.S.-Kunsunda, District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 15. Ranjeeta Devi, aged about 46 years, wife of Alok Kumar Gupta, Resident of LIG 42, Housing Colony, P.O.+P.S. and District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 16. Md. Jalaluddin, aged about 41 years, son of Md. Shamumimuddin, Resident of Susanilewa, Nagnagar, P.O.+P.S. and District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 17. Md Balaluddin, aged about 37 years, son of Md. Shamumimuddin, Resident of Susanilewa, Nagnagar, P.O.+P.S. and District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 18. Md. Abu Sufyan, aged about 78 years, son of late Md Maqbool Ahmed, Resident of Mohalla Emadpur, Nalanda, P.O. and P.S.-District-Bihar Shariff, (Bihar) 2025:JHHC:28341 2 W.P.(C) No.740 of 2022 19. Md. Anwar Hussain, aged about 56 years, son of Md Iltaf Hussain, Residing near Alhera Masjid, Friends Colony, Pansarpala, P.O. and P.S.-Bishupur, District-Dhanbad 20. Sanjay Kumar Bhuwania, aged about 48 years, Son of Banshidhar Bhuwania, Residing near Madan Onar, Chhatand, Kendua Bazar, P.O. and P.S.-Kunsunda, District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 21. Ajit Kumar Roy, aged about 60 years son of late Chandrika Roy, Resident of MIG 31/A, Housing Colony, P.O.+P.S. and District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 22. Sitaram Prasad Burnwal, aged about 66 years son of Ayodhya Prasad Burnwal, Resident of Sukhdeo Nagar behind Panchwati Resturant, Barwa Road, P.O.+P.S. and District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 23. Mahesh Lal Burnwal, aged about 50 years, son of Ayodhya Modi Burnwal, Resident of Janta Market, Shop No.16, Bartand, P.O.+P.S. and District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 24. Manoj Prasad Barnwal, aged about 52 years, son of Ayodhya Burnwal, Resident of Janta Market, Shop No.15, Bartand, P.O.+P.S. and District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 25. Md. Shakil aged about 34 years, son of Mohammad Majid, Resident of New Matkuriya, Wasseypur, Qamar Maqsuri Road, P.O.+P.S.-Jharia District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 26. Arjun Bari, aged about 44 years, son of Raj Kumar, Resident of RMK4-158, Rangamatiya Sindri, near Jai hind more, P.O. and P.S.-Sindri, District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 27. Sandilya Amresh, aged about 45 years, son of Satish Chandra Jha, Resident of Gali No.6, Jai Prakash Nagar, P.O.+P.S.-and District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 28. Gyan Prakash, aged about 53 years, son of late Om Prakash, Resident of LIG 201, Housing Colony, Near Hanuman Mandir, P.O.+P.S.-and District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 29. Suresh Saw @ Suresh Kumar Saw, aged about 44 years son of late Bundi Saw, Resident of House No.115 near Sahu Dharmashala, Koyri Band, Jharia, P.O. and P.S. Jharia, District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 30. Sanjeet Kumar Swarnaker, aged about 43 years, son of Prayag Saw, resident of Sonar Muhalla, Achaljamu, Bishnugarh, P.O.+P.S.-and District-Hazaribagh (Jharkhand) 31. Kamal Kant Pandey, Son of Late Vishwanath Pandey, aged about 66 years, Resident of Sengupta Bhawan, Jharia, P.O.+P.S.-Jharia, District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 32. Manoj Kumar, aged about 48 years, son of Late Ashok Kumar, Resident of HIG 11, Housing Colony, Bartand, P.O.+P.S.-and District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 33. Pravin Agarwal, aged about 42 years, Son of Murli Manohar Agarwal, Resident of B 201 Royal Palm, Menco More, Dhaiya, P.O. and P.S.-Dhaiya, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 34. Ranjeet Kumar Singh age about 50 years, Son of Ram Naresh Singh, Resident of LIG 142, Housing Colony, P.O.+P.S.-and District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 35. Jaya Purbey, aged about 56 years, wife of Ananda Kumar Purvae, CMRI Main Gate, P.O.+P.S.-and District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 36. Ananda Kumar Purvae, aged about 59 years, son of Bipin Bihari Purbey, CMRI Main gate, P.O.+P.S.-and District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 37. Raj Kumar Singh, aged about 45 years, son of Late Dawarika Singh, Resident of New Bishunpur Colony, P.O.+P.S.-Bishunpur District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 38. Pradip Kumar Saw, aged about 56 years son of late Bundi Saw, Resident of House No.115 near Sahu Dharmashala, Koyri Band, Jharia, P.O.+P.S.-Jharia District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 2025:JHHC:28341 3 W.P.(C) No.740 of 2022 39. Vimla Devi, aged about 69 years, wife of Om Prakash Gupta, Resident of LIG 201, Housing Colony, Near Hanuman Mandir, P.O.+P.S.-and District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 40. Punam Pathak, aged about 42 years, wife of Ravindra Pathak, Resident of LIG No.346, Bikash Vidhyala, Housing Colony, P.O.+P.S.-and District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 41. Anjana Pathak, aged about 43 years, wife of Virendranath Pathak, Resident of LIG No.346, Housing Colony, Bartand, P.O.+P.S.-and District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) .… Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand represented through its Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Jharkhand, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand 3. The Managing Director, Jharkhand State Housing Board, P.O. & P.S. District- Ranchi (Jharkhand) 4. Executive Engineer, Jharkhand State Housing Board, P.O. and P.S. and District- Dhanbad 5. Sub Divisional Officer, P.O. & P.S. and District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) .... Respondents .... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR For the Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Kumar No.3, Adv. : Mr. Suraj Prakash, Adv. For the State : Mr. Abhijeet Anand, AC to Sr. SC-I For the Housing Board : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Adv .... 10/16.09.2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- “1. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in the nature of Mandamus, Restraining the Respondent Authorities from Taking steps to evict the petitioners from their respective shops situated at Janta Market, Bartand, Dhanbad, without following the procedure established by law and further to forbear from and/or acting pursuant to the order contained in letter no. 97 dated 25/01/2022 (Annexure-2) and also notice pasted on premises of Janta Market, Bartand, Dhanbad on 10/02/2022 (Annexure-3). 2. Further issuance, of appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to finalize an agreement, the process of which although initiated but is yet to create a relationship of landlord and tenant among the parties.” 2. It appears that there was a dispute with regard to the ownership of the property in question between the Housing Board and private persons, namely, Swapan Kumar Choudhary, Lakhan Chandra Pramanik, Arup Kumar Choudhary and Dhiren Chandra Pramanik. 2025:JHHC:28341 4 W.P.(C) No.740 of 2022 3. From the argument and pleading of the parties following admitted facts emerges:- i. Lakhan Chandra Pramanik and others have filed a title suit being Title Suit No.94 of 1993, the suit for decree of permanent injunction restraining the Jharkhand State Housing Board from interfering with the properties in question and also directing the defendant to execute the deed of exchange in favour of the plaintiffs. The suit has been dismissed vide judgment dated 24.11.2012 and decree dated 09.01.2013. ii. It appears that against the said title suit, an appeal has been preferred being Title Appeal No.147 of 2012, which has also been dismissed vide judgment dated 28.11.2015 upholding the decree. iii. It further appears that against the said order, second appeal has been preferred being Second Appeal No.63 of 2016 and subsequently, Special Leave Petition being S.L.P.(C) No.13971 of 2018 has been preferred and both have been dismissed upholding the original order of the Title Suit No.94 of 1993. iv. It further appears that on the strength of above order, the Housing Board has initiated a proceeding under Section 59 of the Jharkhand State Housing Board Act, 2000 and the said proceeding has been numbered as Eviction Case No.52 of 2015 against Lakhan Chandra Pramanik and others and the order of eviction has been passed by the competent authority contained in Memo No.273 dated 11.12.2015. v. It further appears that against the said order, appeal has been preferred being Appeal No.1 of 2016 before the Joint Secretary cum Appellate Authority, Urban Development & Housing Development, Government of Jharkhand under Section 60 of the Jharkhand State Housing Board Act, 2000 and the said appeal has also been dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has tried to make out his case on the following grounds:- i. They are the tenants in the said premises for last 30-35 years and there is no proceeding against them. ii. Even it is presumed that they are unauthorised occupants then a proceeding against them under Section 59 of the Jharkhand State Housing Board Act, 2000 is sine quo non. iii. Since, they earn their livelihood from the said properties for last 30-35 years, hence, direction may be issued to the Housing Board to accept them as tenant. 2025:JHHC:28341 5 W.P.(C) No.740 of 2022 5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the Jharkhand State Housing Board has justified the action and has negated the right of the petitioners to remain in possession of the properties in question on the following grounds:- i. If they are not claiming independent right rather they are claiming through Lakhan Chandra Pramanik and others, who have lost the suit up to the Hon’ble Apex Court and as such they have no right to make any objection, so far as eviction proceeding is concerned. ii. Learned counsel has referred the relevant portion of the judgment dated 13.03.2018 passed in Second Appeal No.63 of 2016, which reads as under:- “Accordingly, appellant/plaintiff is liable to return the suit land and he cannot retain it, as per command of Section 119 of the Act (supra).” 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and noting down the submission by them, following facts emerges for consideration of this Court:- i. The properties in question have been declared to the property of the Housing Board after due litigation between the parties upheld up to the Hon’ble Apex Court. ii. The present petitioners are claiming their right through the litigant who was the party in the proceeding. iii. The petitioners are not claiming any independent right over the properties as their possession over the properties were with the permission of the earlier landlord (Lakhan Chandra Pramanik). 7. Thus, it is quite evident that the petitioners were in permissive possession of the suit land through the earlier landlord who has fought the case up to the Hon’ble Apex Court and lost the suit. 8. Further the earlier landlord was a party in the eviction proceeding also under Section 59 and 60 of the Jharkhand State Housing Board Act, 2000. Once the person through whom the petitioners are claiming the possession have been duly noticed and participated in the proceeding, there is no requirement of issuance of any notice or initiation of any proceeding against the present petitioners. 9. It is settled principle of law that eviction can be resisted only if a person in possession of the property has independent possession not through the litigant. In the present case, the possession has been claimed through the landlord who has litigated the matter upto the Hon’ble Apex Court and against whom the eviction order has been passed by the competent authority under the Jharkhand State Housing Board Act, 2000. 2025:JHHC:28341 6 W.P.(C) No.740 of 2022 10. In view of above discussion, this Court finds that the petitioners have no right to continue in the possession of the said suit properties and also have no right to resist the eviction. 11. However, before parting with the litigation, this Court feels that the person who have remained in possession of the property for last 30-35 years and earning their livelihood, requires a sympathetic consideration by the organ of the State. If authorities wants to retain the properties in the present form then preference should be given to the present petitioners so far as tenancy is concerned. If they want to make out fresh construction, then also these petitioners shall be given preferential treatment and to claim the preferential treatment, the petitioners have to show bonafide by vacating the land within a month from today. 12. With above observation and direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) 16.09.2025 Shahid/ uploaded