2026:JHHC:9423 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(C) No.2028 of 2026 ----- Kamlesh Kumar, aged about 49 years, son of Swami Nath Sah, resident of Plot No. B1, Centre Market, Siwan More, Sector BC, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro, P.O. and P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District Bokaro, Jharkhand. … Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The Deputy General Manager (Security), Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro, P.O. and P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District Bokaro, Jharkhand. 2. The General Manager (TA-LRA), Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro, P.O. and P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District Bokaro, Jharkhand. 3. The Town Administrator, Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro, P.O. and P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District Bokaro, Jharkhand. 4. The Town Administrator, Electrical Maintenance, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro, P.O. and P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District Bokaro, Jharkhand. 5. The Senior Land and Estate Officer, Town Administration Department, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro, P.O. and P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District Bokaro, Jharkhand. … Respondent(s). CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Onkar Nath Tewary, Advocate Mr. Kranti Kirti Kuiri, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Roy, AC to GA-III …...... 02 /02.04.2026: Heard the learned counsel representing the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. Notice contains in letter dated 03.09.2024 vide Ref. No. TA/LRA/2024/2695 has been issued to the petitioner by the respondent-Steel Authority of India, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro whereby it is alleged that the petitioner has encroached some of the areas which is beyond the area allotted to him. Further there is another allegation that the land was allotted to the petitioner for a particular purpose and he has changed the purpose for which it was allotted to him. 3. As per the notice, the plot was allotted to the petitioner for the purpose of dealing with the cloth but the petitioner thereafter 2026:JHHC:9423 2 changed the nature of allotment and is running a trade of flour mill. Further there is allegation that the petitioner has blocked the common passage varanda in front of the said plot and have encroached a big parcel of the BSL land opposite to the plot and have built store/garage for storing goods on a very large scale. 4. From the impugned notice it is clear that the petitioner has been asked to remove the encroachment or else the respondents will take appropriate action for cancellation of the lease deed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner tries to impress this Court that the petitioner has not done any illegality nor has encroached the land. He further submits the petitioner is using the land which is situated opposite to the allotted land, which in fact, is not harming anyone and it is only a temporary structure. 6. After hearing the parties, I find that there is an allegation against the petitioner that he has encroached some portion of the land and it is his admission that he has constructed temporary structure. 7. Construction of temporary structure made over other person’s land is an encroachment which cannot be allowed. The petitioner cannot be allowed to set-up any structure without authority of law. 8. Since the petitioner has only been noticed and there is no illegality in issuing such notice, I am not inclined to interfere with the same. I direct the petitioner to approach the appropriate Authority to put forth his defence which would be considered and if it is found that the petitioner has actually encroached the land, appropriate action will be taken by the Authorities. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 02.04.2026 Tanuj/CP-2 Uploaded on 07.04.2026