[2025:JHHC:23244] 1 W.P. (C.) No. 1368 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 1368 of 2018 Karu Sao, alias Janardan Sao, aged about 61 years, son of Late Sokhi Sao, resident of New Masjid Gali, Gaddi Mohalla, Giridih, P.O. and P.S. Giridih, District Giridih, PIN 815301. ...... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand Through the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, P.O. and P.S. Giridih, District Giridih, PIN 815301. 2. Sub-Divisional Officer, Giridih, P.O. and P.S. Giridih, District Giridih. 3. Shri Gauri Shankar Bhadani, sons of Late Pritam Ram Bhadani, resident of Isri Bazar, P.O. and P.S. Nimiaghat, District Giridih, PIN 815301. 4. (a) Sachita Bhadani, son of Late Shri Bhim Ram Bhadani, resident to Isri Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Nimiaghat, District Giridih, PIN- 815301 4. (b) Sudhir Bhadani, Late Shri Bhim Ram Bhadani, resident to Isri Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Nimiaghat, District Giridih, PIN - 815301 4. (c) Sanjay Bhadani, Late Shri Bhim Ram Bhadani, resident to Isri Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Nimiaghat, District Giridih, PIN - 815301 4. (d) Sandeep Bhadani, Late Shri Bhim Ram Bhadani, resident to Isri Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Nimiaghat, District Giridih, PIN-815301 5. (a) Ritesh Bhadani, son of Late Shri Arjun Ram Bhadani, resident to Isri Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Nimiaghat, District Giridih, PIN-815301. 5. (b) Rohit Bhadani, son of Late Shri Arjun Ram Bhadani, resident to Isri Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Nimiaghat, District Giridih, PIN -815301. ….. Respondents For the Petitioner : Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Adv. Mr. Prakhar Harit , Adv. Mr. Anish Lal , Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Ashok Kr. Yadav, Sr. SC I. Mr. Adiya Kumar, AC to Sr. SC I. Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AC to Sr. SC I. Mr. P.C. Roy , Adv. Mr. Manoj Kr. Bhagat , Adv. Mr. Shiv Shankar Jee , Adv. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY [2025:JHHC:23244] 2 W.P. (C.) No. 1368 of 2018 By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Writ Petition Criminal has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ / order / direction for quashing and setting aside the notice contained in Memo No. 796 dated 08.03.2018, the copy of which kept at Annexure 12 of this writ petition, issued by the respondent no. 2 being the Sub Divisional Officer, Giridih whereby the respondent no. 2 directed the petitioner to vacate portion of land, having an area of 6 Decimals, the description of which has been mentioned in the said notice. Further prayer has been made for issuance of appropriate writ or direction declaring that the said notice is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction as the respondent no. 2 cannot usurp upon itself the jurisdiction of a competent civil court and third prayer has also been made for issuance of appropriate writ or direction including the writ of mandamous by restraining respondent State Authorities from interfering with the peaceful possession of the property of the petitioner over the said land. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner is the owner of a plot of land having an area of 6 Decimals situated over Khata no. 5, Plot no. 2432 within Ward No. 25 of Giridih Municipal Council and peacefully enjoying the same having a building thereon which is being occupied by the petitioner and his ancestors for more than 50 to 55 years by paying land revenue receipt to the State Government and Holding Tax to Giridih Municipal Council. The private respondent nos. 3 to 5 being the owner of an adjacent property, are bent upon disturbing the peaceful possession of the petitioner and to harass the petitioner, have also filed petitions before [2025:JHHC:23244] 3 W.P. (C.) No. 1368 of 2018 various authorities and in response to one such petition filed in the Town Police Station Giridih, a proceeding under section 107 of CrPC was initiated and in the report submitted by the Officer-in-charge, Town Police Station, Giridih, it was categorically mentioned that the petitioner has been residing in the concerned premises since long. 4. It is next submitted that it is the further case of the petitioner that despite the said report submitted by the Officer in Charge of Town Police Station Giridih, the Deputy Commissioner directed the Sub-Divisional Officer, Giridih to initiate an appropriate proceeding against the petitioner for restoration of land to the respondent no. 3. In response to such order of the Deputy Commissioner concerned, the respondent no. 2 issued notice to the petitioner and the petitioner accordingly filed his reply and put forth his case and requested the respondent no. 2 to not to proceed further in the matter but even then without having any jurisdiction by usurping upon itself the jurisdiction of the competent a civil court, the respondent no. 2 by making a roving enquiry, issued the said impugned notice. 5. It is further submitted that in view of the conduct of the private respondent nos. 3 to 5 of disturbing the possession of the petitioner, the petitioner filed Original Suit no. 21 of 2018 for adjudication of his right, title, interest and possession to be declared and confirmed in respect of the said 6 decimals of the land in question and in view of the pendency of the said Civil Suit, certainly the respondent no. 2 ought not have passed impugned order, which was certainly within the exclusive domain of the civil court of competent jurisdiction. 6. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bishan Das and Others v. State of Punjab and Others reported in 1961 SCC OnLine SC 136, the relevant portion of para 14 of which reads as under- [2025:JHHC:23244] 4 W.P. (C.) No. 1368 of 2018 “14. Before we part with this case, we feel it our duty to say that the executive action taken in this case by the State and its officers is destructive of the basic principle of the rule of law. The facts and the position in law thus clearly are (1) that the buildings constructed on this piece of Government land did not belong to Government, (2) that the petitioners were in possession and occupation of the buildings and (3) that by virtue of enactments binding on the Government, the petitioners could be dispossessed, if at all, only in pursuance of a decree of a Civil Court obtained in proceedings properly initiated. In these circumstances the action of the Government in taking the law into their hands and dispossessing the petitioners by the display of force, exhibits a callous disregard of the normal requirements of the rule of law apart from what might legitimately and reasonably be expected from a Government functioning in a society governed by a Constitution which guarantees to its citizens against arbitrary invasion by the executive of peaceful possession of property. As pointed out by this Court in Wazir Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh [(1953) 1 SCC 274 : (1955) 1 SCR 408] , the State or its executive officers cannot interfere with the rights of others unless they can point to some specific rule of law which authorises their acts. In Ram Prasad Narayan Sahi v. State of Bihar [(1953) 1 SCC 274 : (1953) SCR 1129] this Court said that nothing is more likely to drain the vitality from the rule of law than legislation which singles out a particular individual from his fellow subjects and visits him with a disability which is not imposed upon the others. We have here a highly discriminatory and autocratic act which deprives a person of the possession of property without reference to any law or legal authority. Even if the property was trust property it is difficult to see how the Municipal Committee, Barnala, can step in as trustee on an executive determination only. The reasons given for this extraordinary action are, to quote what we said in Sahi case [(1953) 1 SCC 274 : (1953) SCR 1129] , remarkable for their disturbing implications.”(Emphasis supplied) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a settled principle of law that the State or its executive officers cannot interfere with the rights of others unless they point out to some specific rule of law which authorises their acts, and in this case, there is absolutely no rule of law which empowers the respondent no. 2 to pass orders of eviction of any person from any property. [2025:JHHC:23244] 5 W.P. (C.) No. 1368 of 2018 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Gauri Shankar Bhagat vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1997 1 BLJR 362 wherein the Co-ordinate Bench relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Krishna Ram Mahale (Dead), By His Lrs. vs Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao reported in AIR 1989 SC 2097 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the settled principle of law that where a person is in settled possession of property, even on the assumption that he had no right to remain on the property, he cannot be dispossessed by the owner of the property except by recourse to law and in that judgment the Co-ordinate Bench also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sri Samir Sobhan Sanyal vs Tracks Trade Private Ltd. & Ors. reported in (1996) 4 SCC 144 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India considered that the letter of the law should strictly be adhered to and in that case, high-handed action by the respondents of having the appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, dispossessed without the due process of law, which was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the same cannot be overlooked or condoned, because if the Court gives acceptance to such high-handed action, there will be no respect for rule of law and unlawful elements would take hold of the due process of law for ransom and it would be a field day for anarchy and in such case, due process of law would be put to ridicule in the estimate of the law-abiding citizens and rule of law would remain a mortuary, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this writ petition be allowed. 8. Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the private respondents, on the other hand, vehemently opposes the prayers. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the [2025:JHHC:23244] 6 W.P. (C.) No. 1368 of 2018 respondents that private respondents are the victims of dis- possessions from their land hence, justified the action of the responded no. 2 in issuing the notice. On being specifically asked by the court as to under which provision of law the respondent no. 2 is empowered to pass such order as impugned in this writ petition, it is fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that no specific statute vests such power upon the responder no. 2. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent – State Submit that in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit dated 30.08.2024 filed by the respondent-State, it has categorically been admitted that there is no Mention of any law / section / rule in the impugned notice which is not reasonable and it was mentioned that Mrs. Jadhav Vijaya Narayan Rao ( about five months of her first posting to the post of Sub-Divisional Officer, Giridih on 05.10.2017 ), issued the said notice as a precautionary measure in view of any possible apprehension for maintaining law and order, hence, it is submitted that this writ petition being without any merit be dismissed. 10. Having heard the submission made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is needless to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that the State or its executive officer cannot interfere with the right of others unless there is some specific rule of law which authorizes their act. 11. Now coming to the facts of the case by the said Annexure 12 which has been issued to the petitioner, the Sub-Divisional Officer, has directed the petitioner to vacate the land in question. The undisputed fact remains that the Sub- Divisional Officer, has no power vested by any specific law to order dispossession of a person, who is in possession of his property, as has fairly been submitted by learned counsel for the respondents also. The Sub-Divisional Officer, because of her inexperience being a newly appointed officer of about [2025:JHHC:23244] 7 W.P. (C.) No. 1368 of 2018 five months, has issued the said notice. In view of the undisputed fact that the respondent no. 2 was not vested with any power to order for dispossession of the petitioner from the land in question, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the action of the respondent no. 2 in issuing the Annexure 12, is without jurisdiction, arbitrary and illegal, hence is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the notice contained in Memo No. 796 dated 08.03.2018, the copy of which kept at Annexure 12 of this writ petition issued by the respondent no. 2 being the Sub Divisional Officer, Giridih, is quashed and set aside. 12. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and in view of the disposal of this writ petition, the I.A. No. 4614 of 2024 is also disposed of being infructuous and the interim order passed earlier vide order dated 19.03.2018 is vacated. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 30th July, 2025 Smita /AFR