2026:JHHC:24817 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(C) No.2574 of 2023 ----- 1.Md. Mohiuddin @ Moinuddin, son of late Md. Hanif 2.Md. Kuran Ahmad, son of late Md. Ahmad Ali 3.Md. Gulistan Ahmad, son of late Md. Ahmad Ali 4.Md. Sarvar Alam, son of late Md. Nayeemuddin All are resident of village and PO Kaithiya, PS Basantrai, District Godda, Jharkhand … Petitioner(s). Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Govt. of Jharkhand, PO and PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi 2.The Deputy Commissioner, Godda 3.The Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda 4.The Circle Officer, Basantrai, Godda 5.Md. Ziauddin, son of Md. Wazuddin, resident of vill and PS Kaithiya, PS Basantrai, District Godda … Respondent(s). With WP(C) No.6345 of 2022 ----- Md. Ziauddin, son of Md. Wazuddin, resident of village Kaithia via Basantrai, PO Kaithia, PS Basantrai, District Godda … Petitioner(s). Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The Deputy Commissioner, Godda 3.The Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda 4.The Circle Officer, Basantrai, Godda 5.Md. Mohiuddin, son of late Md. Hanif, village Kaithia via Basantrai, PO Kaithia, PS Basantrai, Godda 6.Md. Nayeemuddin, son of late Md. Hanif, village Kaithia via Basantrai, PO Kaithia, PS Basantrai, Godda 7.Md. Kuran, son of late Md. Ahmad, village Kaithia via Basantrai, PO Kaithia, PS Basantrai, Godda 8.Md. Gulishtan, son of late Md. Ahmad, village Kaithia via Basantrai, PO Kaithia, PS Basantrai, Godda … Respondent(s). CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. K. Choudhary, Advocate [In WP(C) No. 2574 of 2023] Md. Jalisur Rahman, Advocate [in WP(C) No. 6345 of 2022] For the State : Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC-IV Mr. Suman Marandi, AC to SC-IV [In WP(C) No. 2574 of 2023] Mr. Abhinay Kumar, AC to GA-I [in WP(C) No. 6345 of 2022] 2026:JHHC:24817 2 …...... 08 /18.08.2026: WP(C) No.2574 of 2023 Heard learned counsel representing the petitioners and learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed to quash the Encroachment Case No. 01/2020-21 and the notice under section 6(2) of the Jharkhand Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (wrongly mentioned as Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956) whereby the petitioners have been directed to remove the encroachments. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have constructed a house in Dag No. 815 Mouza Kaithiya, PS Basantrai, District Godda. He submits that there is 10 feet wide road available but notice has been given to the petitioners that there is encroachment on the road, thus, they have to remove the encroachment. In paragraph no. 10 of the writ petition the petitioners have categorically stated that no notice was given to the petitioners regarding the Encroachment Case No. 01/2020-21. Without hearing the petitioners and without passing any reasoned order a direction was given to the petitioners to remove the encroachment. The said statement has been made in paragraph-11 of the writ petition. 4. It is their case that without applying the principle of natural justice and without properly appreciating the defence of the petitioners impugned notice to remove the encroachment cannot be given. 5. The State appeared and filed their detail counter affidavit refuting all the allegations leveled in the writ petition. They had taken a specific stand that the petitioners were heard in the encroachment proceeding and several opportunities were given to them and they even appeared before the Officer concerned. The State also referred to some communications between the petitioners and the Circle Officer wherein it has been undertaken by the petitioners that they themselves will remove the 2026:JHHC:24817 3 encroachment. 6. After hearing the parties, I find that the petitioners have challenged the notice whereby the petitioners have been directed to remove the encroachments. This notice is under section 6 of the Jharkhand Public Land Encroachment Act. It is a specific case of the petitioners that the petitioners were not heard and thus the notice is absolutely bad. 7. While going through the counter affidavit especially counter affidavit filed by the respondent nos. 2 to 4, I find that the entire ordersheet of the encroachment case has been produced. The order dated 13.01.2021 passed by the Circle Officer suggests that a map and the measurement report was placed before the Circle Officer. Thereafter a notice was issued to the petitioners to remove the encroachment. The order dated 23.02.2021 suggests that the encroachers i.e. the petitioners had appeared. They had specifically taken a plea that the measurement was done behind their back when they were not present. The order dated 05.10.2021 also suggests that the petitioners along with the opposite parties have appeared. It further suggests that the parties requested for fresh measurement. The order dated 18.04.2023 suggests that fresh report of Amin was placed which suggests that there is encroachment. Order dated 25.04.2023 also suggest that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner but the petitioner could not produce any document in their support and thus the encroachment was substantiated. Order dated 18.05.2023 also suggests that the petitioners were present. 8. The aforesaid ordersheets clearly suggest that the petitioners were present and they were given all opportunity, even remeasurement was also done at their instance. Suppressing all these facts the petitioners files this writ petition and got an interim order on 19.08.2023 in their favour from this Court. 9. Further Annexure-C of the counter-affidavit also suggest that the petitioners have informed the Circle Officer that they will themselves remove the encroachment and requested not to use 2026:JHHC:24817 4 JCB to demolish the encroachment. 10. Since there is an order of eviction and the evidence suggests that the petitioners have encroached, I find no ground to interfere with the aforesaid orders and the process of removal of the encroachment. 11. Thus, it is necessary to remove the encroachment. 12. I find no merit in this writ petition, thus, this writ petition is dismissed. 13. I.A. No. 8490 of 2024 stands disposed of. WP(C) No. 6345 of 2022 14. Considering the order passed in the first case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner has already been redressed as this writ petition was filed for removing the encroachment, thus, this writ petition has become infructuous. 15. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. 16. I.A. No. 2327 of 2023 stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 18.08.2026 Tanuj/CP-2 Uploaded on 21.08.2026