2026:JHHC:22354-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 53 of 2026 Shailesh Kumar, S/o Late Jainandan Prasad, R/o Plot No. GA-4, City Centre, Sector-4, Bokaro Steel City, PO & PS-Sector-IV, District- Bokaro ... … Appellant Versus 1. The Steel Authority of India Limited, through its Chairman, having its office at ISPAT Bhawan, Lodhi Road, PO & PS-Lodhi Road, New Delhi 2. The Managing Director, Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro Steel Plant, having its office at Main Administrative Building, Bokaro Steel City, PO & PS-Bokaro Steel City, District-Bokaro 3. The General Manager, Town Administration Department, Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro Steel Plant, having its office at Nagar Seva Bhawan, Bokaro Steel City, PO & PS-Bokaro Steel City, District-Bokaro 4. The Deputy General Manager (TA-LRA), Town Administration Department, Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro Steel Plant, having its office at Nagar Seva Bhawan, Bokaro Steel City, PO & PS-Bokaro Steel City, District-Bokaro 5. The Superintendent, Land and Estate, Town Administration Department, Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro Steel City, having its office at Nagar Seva Bhawan, Bokaro Steel City, PO & PS-Bokaro Steel City, District-Bokaro 6. The Manager (Land and Estate), Steel Authority of India Limited, Land and Estate, Town Administration Department, Bokaro Steel Plant, having its office at Nagar Seva Bhawan, Bokaro Steel City, PO & PS-Bokaro Steel City, District-Bokaro 7. The Estate Officer, Bokaro Steel City, PO & PS-Bokaro Steel City, District-Bokaro ... … Respondents ----- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Appellant : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rahul Lamba, Advocate Mr. Anish Kamal, Advocate Ms. Kanu Priya, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate ----- Order No. 03 Dated: 29.07.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that the appellant would go 2026:JHHC:22354-DB 2 before the authorities under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1971”) without pressing for any other reliefs in this appeal. 3. However, he submits that there are certain observations, including those in paragraph 37 of the impugned order, which may severely prejudice the appellant in pursuing the matters before the authorities under the Act, 1971. He submits that this Court may clarify that the authorities under the Act, 1971 should not be influenced by such observations and the matter should be decided strictly in accordance with law and on its own merits after considering all the contentions of all the parties. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that in paragraph-42 of the impugned order, it is already clarified that the authorities under the Act, 1971 should decide pending proceedings in accordance with law and without being prejudiced by the dismissal of the writ petition. He therefore submitted that no further clarification is necessary. 5. Now that the appellant is going to pursue the proceedings before the authorities under the Act, 1971, we clarify that he would be permitted to raise all contentions permissible under the law and if such contentions are raised, needless to add that the authorities under the Act, 1971 will deal with and decide it in accordance with law and on their own merits. 6. The authorities under the Act, 1971 need not be influenced by 2026:JHHC:22354-DB 3 any of the observations in the impugned order, including the observations in paragraph-37, touching the factual aspects of the matter, and the matter will have to be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law. The observations, at the highest, are prima facie in nature and were made only for the purpose of deciding whether the appellant should be relegated before the authorities under the Act, 1971 or not. 7. With the above clarification, we dispose of this appeal as not pressed and without any order for costs. We note that even the learned Single Judge had clarified that the authorities under the Act, 1971 should decide the pending proceedings in accordance with law and without being prejudiced by the dismissal of the writ petition by the impugned order. 8. Pending I.As. do not survive and are disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) July 29, 2026 Manish/Ritesh Uploaded on 31.07.2026