2026:JHHC:16584 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.3673 of 2019 ------ Smt. Shila Singh, wife of Sri Sitaram Singh, resident of Plot No.261 (Part), Adityapur, P.O. and P.S. Adityapur, District Saraikella- Kharsawan. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, having its office at Project Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 2. The Executive Engineer, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Jamshedpur Division, Jamshedpur, P.O. and P.S. Adityapur, District Saraikella-Kharsawan. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yadunandan Mishra, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mrs. Shalini Shahdeo, AC to SC (L&C)-I (For State) Mr. Gaurav Raj, Advocate (For JSHB) Ms. Shambhavi Sinha, Advocate ------ 19/ 09.06.2026 Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.09.2018 / 25.09.2018 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition), passed by the Joint Secretary-cum-Appellate Authority, Urban Development and Housing Department in Appeal No.01 of 2015, whereby and whereunder he had directed the petitioner to handover 854.52 sq. ft. of land to the Housing Board. 2.1. Further prayer has been made to quash the order dated 28.02.2015 (original order) (Annexure-11 to the writ petition), passed by the Jharkhand State Housing Board, Harmu, Ranchi, in Eviction Case No.02 of 2014, whereby the petitioner was directed to handover the possession of 854.52 sq. ft. of land. 3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits 2026:JHHC:16584 2 that the petitioner has not encroached any land belonging to the Housing Board, rather she was an Allottee of the land in question. He submits that there was a Lease Deed executed between the petitioner and the Housing Board and the petitioner is strictly abiding the said Lease Deed and has not encroached any portion. He submits that vide order dated 31.01.2013 passed in W.P.(C) No.3973 of 2008 (Shila Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.), it has been categorically held by a Coordinate Bench of this Court that the petitioner's possession over the area in question i.e. 5399.48 sq. ft., under Plot No.261, cannot be disturbed, thus the respondents could not have directed the petitioner to hand over 854.52 sq. ft. to the Housing Board, by removing the structure. 4. Learned counsel representing the respondent - Jharkhand State Housing Board (JSHB), submits that there is no dispute that the petitioner has been allotted an area of 5399.48 sq. ft., but it has come to the notice that the petitioner is occupying and utilizing more area than 5399.48 sq. ft., thus the respondents have directed to handover the excess area which the petitioner is occupying beyond 5399.48 sq. ft. 5. Learned counsel representing the respondent - State submits that by the order of this Court, the Circle Officer was directed to measure the area occupied by the petitioner and on measurement it was found that the petitioner was occupying more area than what had been allotted to her i.e. more than 5399.48 sq. ft. 6. After hearing the parties, I find that there is no dispute that the petitioner has been allotted 5399.48 sq. ft. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the earlier writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) No.3973 of 2008, had also acknowledged the same. Further, the Housing Board is also accepting that the petitioner is a legal occupant of area of 5399.48 sq. ft., which had been allotted to the petitioner, but the fact remains that both the Housing Board and the State after measuring the area occupied by the petitioner, found that the petitioner is occupying more area beyond the aforesaid 5399.48 sq. ft. Thus, it is clear that the area which the petitioner has occupied 2026:JHHC:16584 3 beyond 5399.48 sq. ft., is an encroachment. The respondents have only directed the petitioner to handover the aforesaid encroached area to the Housing Board. 6.1. Since, from the reports itself it is clear that the petitioner is in occupation of more area than what had actually been allotted to her, there is no doubt that the petitioner has encroached excess area which the respondent - Housing Board is claiming i.e. 854.52 sq. ft. Thus, I find no illegality in the impugned order directing the petitioner to vacate the encroached area i.e. 854.52 sq. ft. The petitioner should vacate the said excess area, within four weeks, from today itself. 6.2. It is made clear that the respondents will not demand vacation of any space which falls within 5399.48 sq. ft. of area allotted to the petitioner. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 09th June, 2026 Prashant. Cp-2 Uploaded on 15.06.2026