2026:JHHC:21364 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(C) No.1392 of 2019 ----- 1. Mahendra Pratap Singh, aged about 47 years, son of Late Madan Mohan Singh, resident of J.P. Lane Hirabagh, Matwari, P.O. & P.S. Sadar, District Hazaribagh. 2. Alakh Narayan Das, aged about 76 years, son of Sri Mahhipat Narayan Das, resident of J.P. Lane Hirabagh, Matwari, P.O. & P.S. Sadar, District Hazaribagh. 3. Kamla Devi, aged about 70 years, wife of Mithilesh Sharma, resident of J.P. Lane Hirabagh, Matwari, P.O. & P.S. Sadar, District Hazaribagh. 4. Anil Kumar Suman, aged about 53 years, son of Late Baldeo Sharma, resident of J.P. Lane Hirabagh, Matwari, P.O. & P.S. Sadar, District Hazaribagh. 5. Sanjay Kumar, aged about 52 years, son of Baldeo Sharma, resident of J.P. Lane Hirabagh, Matwari, P.O. & P.S. Sadar, District Hazaribagh. 6. Purnima Sinha, aged about 63 years, wife of Arun Kumar Sinha, resident of J.P. Lane Hirabagh, Matwari, P.O. & P.S. Sadar, District Hazaribagh. 7. Mithilesh Kumar Sharma, aged about 75 years, son of Late Ramnik Sharma, resident of J.P. Lane Hirabagh, Matwari, P.O. & P.S. Sadar, District Hazaribagh. 8.Pradip Kumar Mehta, aged about 55 years, son of late Kedar Nath Mehta, resident of J.P. Lane Hirabagh, Matwari, PO and PS Sadar, District Hazaribagh 9. Rajesh Sinha, aged about 43 years, son of Late Gopal Prasad Sinha, resident of J.P. Lane Hirabagh, Matwari, P.O. & P.S. Sadar, District Hazaribagh. 10. Arun Kumar Sinha, aged about 62 years, son of C.K.P. Sinha, resident of J.P. Lane Hirabagh, vide Matwari, P.O. & P.S. Sadar, District Hazaribagh. 11(a) Indu Sinha, aged 66 years, wife of VK Sinha, resident of 54, JP lane, Hirabag Matwari, P.O Sadar, PS Sadar, Hazaribagh. 11(b) Vikrant Narayan, aged 40 years, son of V.K. Sinha, resident of 23, Ras Vihar Apartment, near West Vinod Nagar Metro Station, Patparganj, PS IP Extention, PO Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 11(c) Vishal Narayan, aged 39 years, son of V.K. Sinha, resident of 56, Tubes Colony, Nilidih, Opp. Tubemakers Club Jamshedpur, PO Golmuri, PS Golmuri, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand … Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi. 2026:JHHC:21364 2 2. Hazaribagh Municipal Corporation, Hazaribagh, through its Municipal Commissioner, having its office at Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh (Jharkhand). 3. Executive Officer, Hazaribagh Municipal Corporation, Hazaribagh, having its office at Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh (Jharkhand). 4. Dy. Commissioner Hazaribagh having its Office at Hazaribagh, P.O. Hazaribagh, P.S. Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh 5. Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh having its Office at Hazaribagh P.O. Hazaribagh, P.S. Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh … Respondent(s). CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Ms. Sanjana Shrestha, Advocate Ms. Prerna Jhunjhunwala, Advocate For the State : Mr. Nawal Kishor Pandey, AC to SC (L&C)-I For Resp. No. 2-3 : Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Advocate For Resp-Intervenor: Mr. Awanish Ranjan Mishra, Advocate Mr. Ujjwal Jaipuriar, Advocate Mr. Vijayendra Pratap, Advocate …...... 18 /20.07.2026: Heard learned counsel representing the petitioners and learned counsel representing the State and learned counsel representing the intervenor-respondents. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the Notice dated 09.02.2019 whereby and whereunder the petitioners have been directed to remove the gate and other structures which according to the respondents has been constructed over the public road. It has also been directed if the same is not removed within 7 days it will be forcibly removed by the respondent-authorities and the cost of removal will be recovered from the petitioners. 3. Ms. Sanjana Shrestha, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that before passing the said order as contained in Notice No. 45 dated 09.02.2019 no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners. She also submits that on earlier occasion the Sub- Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Sadar, Hazaribagh initiated a proceeding bearing no. 1 of 2011 under section 133 of Cr.PC and order dated 12.09.2011 was passed against the petitioners. The 2026:JHHC:21364 3 same was challenged in Criminal Revision No. 196 of 2011 which was ultimately allowed on 16.10.2015 by setting aside the impugned order. It is her contention that once the order under section 133 Cr.PC has been set aside by the Revisional Authority, the respondents transgressed their jurisdiction by issuing impugned Notice dated 09.02.2019. It is her contention that no construction has been made over any land which belongs to the government nor it is creating any hindrance. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Intervenor- respondents submits that the order dated 16.10.2015 passed in the Criminal Revision No. 196 of 2011 was challenged in Criminal Writ being WP(Cr.) No. 54 of 2019 wherein some observation was made by the learned Court and thereafter as per the direction the impugned notice has been issued to the petitioners. The construction which the petitioners have made over the public land is creating nuisance. Thus, the order was passed and notice was issued to the petitioners to remove the construction. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Hazaribagh Municipal submits that the impugned notice is under section 235 of the Jharkhand Municipal Act. It is his case that the construction has been made over the public road which is creating hindrance and nuisance, which needs to be removed. 6. After hearing the parties, I find that the impugned Notice has been issue on 09.02.2019 directing the petitioners to remove the construction which the petitioners have made over the land in question. The respondent-Municipality has arrived at a conclusion that the construction has been made over the public road, which needs to be removed. 7. Admittedly, no proceeding was initiated against the petitioners nor the petitioners were given an opportunity of hearing. Further, earlier a proceeding under section 133 of Cr.PC was initiated, in which order was passed against the petitioners, directing the petitioners to remove the construction. The petitioners challenged the same in revision application but the 2026:JHHC:21364 4 revision was allowed by setting aside the order passed under section 133 of Cr.PC. The order passed in criminal revision was also challenged in W.P.(Cr.) 54 of 2019 by one Vishal Kumar. The said order has been produced before me which is dated 11.10.2023. 8. After going through the order, I find that the Coordinate Bench of this Court did not interfere with the final order passed in Criminal Revision No. 196 of 2011 on the ground of non- compliance of the provisions of Cr.PC. However, liberty was given to file a fresh application under section 133 Cr.PC before the competent authority who was directed to decide the same in accordance with law. Paragraph no. 9 of the aforesaid order which has been produced before this Court reads as follows: “9. In view of above and considering that inspite of valid notice, the private respondents have not appeared and the facts disclosed in the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondent-State in para 4 that said road is government road and the private respondents have encroached the road, impugned order 16.10.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Hazaribag in Criminal Revision No. 196 of 2011 whereby he has been pleased to set aside notice dated 12.09.2011 passed in connection with Case No. 01/2011, on the ground of not complying the provisions cannot be set aside as the same was required to comply. However, seeing the nature of allegation the petitioner is put at liberty to file a fresh petition under Section 133 Cr.P.C. before the competent authority, who will decide the same in accordance with law.” 9. Considering the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court under criminal writ jurisdiction, now a fresh proceeding under section 133 Cr.P.C. (now section 152 BNSS) needs to be initiated and the same needs to be decided. Once the said proceeding is initiated, the decision should be taken to comply the provisions of the BNSS then only the petitioners can be directed to remove the encroachment, if any, or to remove the obstructions. 10. Thus, it is expected that the State should initiate fresh 2026:JHHC:21364 5 proceeding after giving an opportunity to the petitioners and after following the due procedure and provisions will pass an appropriate order at the earliest. The impugned Notice No. 45 dated 09.02.2019 which violates the principles of natural justice is set aside. 11. Accordingly, this writ application stands allowed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 20.07.2026 Tanuj/CP-2 Uploaded on 23.07.2026