[2026:JHHC:426-DB] Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6169 of 2025 --------- Saryu Singh, aged about 62 years, son of Girjanandan Singh, resident of 414 B 2, Sharma Road, Post Dhurwa, Police Station Dhurwa, District Ranchi. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi officiating from D.C. Office, Ranchi, Post GPO, Police Station Sadar, District-Ranchi. 3. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ranchi officiating from Ranchi, Post GPO, Police Station Sadar, District-Ranchi. 4. The Circle Officer, Nagri, officiating from Nagri, Post Nagri, Police Station Nagri, District-Ranchi. … … Respondents With W.P.(C) No. 6348 of 2025 --------- 1. Vinay Kumar aged about 47 years, son of Chandradeo Lal, resident of Village-Patratoli, Near Lal Saheb, Balalong, P.O. and P.S.-Balalong, District Ranchi (Jharkhand). 2. Shyam Sundar Devi, aged about 52 years, wife of Rajeshwar Prasad, resident of Village-Patra Toli, Dhurwa, Balalong, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand). 3. Shashi Shekhar Kumar Deepak aged about 38 years, son of late Padm Bhushan Kanth resident of Village-House No.171/A, Patra Toli, Dhurwa, Balalong, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi (Jharkhand). 4. Tanuja Devi aged about 42 years, wife of Rakesh Kumar, resident of Village-Patra Toli, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand). 5. Narendra Singh, aged about 43 years, son of Nand Keshwar Singh, resident of Village-171 Patara Toli, Near Hanuman Mandir, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand). 6. Kashi Nath Thakur, aged about 75 years, son of late Keshri Thakur, resident of Village-J.P. Market Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi (Jharkhand). … … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi officiating from D.C. Office, Ranchi, Post GPO, Police Station Sadar, District-Ranchi. 3. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ranchi officiating from Ranchi, Post GPO, Police Station Sadar, District-Ranchi. 4. The Circle Officer, Nagri, officiating from Nagri, Post Nagri, Police Station Nagri, District-Ranchi. [2026:JHHC:426-DB] Page | 2 … … Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD ---------- For the Petitioners : Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate [in both cases] For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar, GA-III Mr. P.C. Sinha, AC to GA-III Mr. Abhijeet Anand, AC to Sr. SC-I ----------- 03/Dated: 07th January, 2026 1. Both the writ petitions have been listed together for analogous hearing. In one of the writ petitions, i.e., W.P.(C) No. 6348 of 2025 counter affidavit has already been filed. 2. The fact giving rise to filing of the present writ petitions is that the petitioners claim to be rightful owner of the sub-plots/Plot No.1091, Khata No.114 at Mouza Balalong, Ranchi having been purchased from the vendor or the original owner of the said plot through registered sale deed for which rent receipts have also been issued. 3. Thereafter, the petitioners came into the peaceful possession of the land in question and have also constructed their houses and are residing there. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(PIL) No. 1463 of 2020, a notice was published vide letter dated 21.01.2021 by the Circle Officer, Nagri, Ranchi addressed to the District Public Relation Officer dealing with Plot No. 1091 Mauza- Balalong, Ranchi declaring the petitioners to be the encroachers over the said land as they have made illegal constructions over the acquired lands for the purpose of Dhurwa Dam and its catchment area. 5. Thereafter, on 29.01.2021, a notice has been issued by the office of Circle Officer, Nagri, Ranchi directing the petitioners to remove the encroachment by 10.02.2021. 6. Being aggrieved thereof, the petitioners of W.P.(C) No. 6348 of 2025 have approached to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 658 of 2021 challenging the order dated 29.01.2021 and the said writ petition was disposed of directing the petitioners to appear before the Circle Officer with all the relevant documents. [2026:JHHC:426-DB] Page | 3 7. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the petitioners of W.P.(C) No. 6348 of 2025 approached before the Circle Officer and the Circle Officer, Nagri, Ranchi vide order dated 02.08.2021 had rejected the claims of the petitioners and initiated proceeding for their eviction. 8. However, it is the case of the petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 6169 of 2025 that the list annexed with the notice dated 21.01.2021 did not contain the name of the petitioner or his wife, as such, he did not respond to the same and again on 29.01.2021, another notice was issued which also did not contain the name of the petitioner or his wife. 9. The petitioners being aggrieved with the order of eviction/notice of removal of encroachment have approached this Court by filing the present writ petitions. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are the rightful owner of the sub-plots of Plot No.1091, Khata No.114 at Mouza Balalong, Ranchi having been purchased from the vendor or the original owner of the said plot through registered sale deed for which rent receipts have also been issued, as such, issuance of notice of eviction declaring the petitioners to be the encroachers is absolutely illegal and contrary to the statutory mandate. 11. Learned State counsel has submitted that in both the writ petitions, the land in question is Plot No. 1091, by way of sub-plots. 12. The plot no.1091 as per the stand interalia taken in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No. 6348 of 2025 has been found in the catchment area of Dhurwa Dam which is now vested upon the State by virtue of acquisition. 13. It has been contended that so far as the land in question which is the subject matter of writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 6169 of 2025 is concerned, that is also the part of Plot No. 1091. 14. It has also been contended by the learned State counsel that although the counter affidavit has not been filed in W.P.(C) No. 6169 of 2025 but the stand since has been taken in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No. 6348 of 2025 pertaining to plot no. 1091 which is also the subject matter [2026:JHHC:426-DB] Page | 4 of land in W.P.(C) No. 6169 of 2025 is also part of the plot no.1091 which is located entirely in the catchment area of Dhurwa Dam, hence, the stand which has been taken in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No. 6348 of 2025 be also taken into consideration in W.P.(C) No. 6169 of 2025. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent, based upon the aforesaid submission, has submitted that the petitioners being the encroachers of the acquired land/catchment area, as such, they have no right over the said plot. 16. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 17. Both the writ petitions are being argued by the same counsel being on record. 18. The counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No. 6348 of 2025 has been served upon the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 6348 of 2025 but there is no rebuttal reply to the same. 19. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the notice has been issued before the exercise of demolition with respect to the land which is the subject matter of W.P.(C) No. 6348 of 2025 but in W.P.(C) No. 6169 of 2025, no notice has been issued. 20. Learned counsel for the State has raised objection that since the land in question, i.e., plot no. 1091 which is part of the land, subject matter of W.P.(C) No. 6348 of 2025 is also under the catchment area, then, even though the notice will be issued, there is no change in the aforesaid fact. 21. This Court having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the stand inter alia taken in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State duly been sworn by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ranchi as available in W.P.(C) No. 6348 of 2025 wherein it has been stated at paragraph-8 that survey team was constituted which has confirmed that the land of Mauza-Balalong, Plot No. 1091 is situated within the Dhurwa (Hatia) Dam Catchment Area and is a public land and the petitioners are the unauthorized encroachers. [2026:JHHC:426-DB] Page | 5 22. It has also been stated in the said counter affidavit that the land after having been acquired, the amount of compensation has already been paid in favour of the predecessor in interest or to the vendor from whom the land has been purchased by some of the petitioners and the land of some of the petitioners are coming under the catchment area of Dhurwa Dam. 23. It has further been stated in the counter affidavit at paragraphs-13 and 14 that land under Plot No. 1091 is officially recorded as the Catchment Area of the Dhruwa (Hatia) Dam and hence cannot be transferred to private individuals as also it has been stated that the subsequent purchase of the land by the petitioners cannot confer valid title over the land which is non-transferable public land protected under the Jharkhand Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956. 24. Learned counsel for the petitioner is trying to make out a case herein on the basis of the subsequent documents, i.e., issuance of rent receipt and the deed of registration but the said documents cannot create any title in favour of the petitioners by virtue of the fact that the acquisition of land cannot be disputed as also the land is situated in the catchment area of Dhurwa Dam and that is the reason, no rebuttal reply has been filed. 25. Admittedly, the petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 6169 of 2025 is claiming his right over the land situated at Plot No.1091 under Mouza-Balalong, Khata No. 114 but the said part of the land is encroached land over the catchment area of the acquired land and is situated within the Dhurwa (Hatia) Dam Catchment Area and is a public land as would be evident from the statement made by the State in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No. 6348 of 2025. For ready reference, the statement made in the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 6169 of 2025 and the statement made in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No. 6348 of 2025 are being referred as under: “W.P.(C) No. 6169 of 2025: 8. That the wife of the petitioner namely Smt. Hemanti Devi purchased a piece of land measuring five decimals appertaining to Thana No. 236, Khata No. 114, R.S. Plot No. 1091, Sub Plot No. 1091/G, Mauza Balalong, Ratu Circle, District Ranchi by paying the consideration amount by registered Sale Deed dated 02.03.2002 from Lal Neelkanth Nath Sahdev. Content of Counter Affidavit: [2026:JHHC:426-DB] Page | 6 8. That pursuant to the said PIL, a survey team was constituted, which confirmed that land under Mauja Balalong, Plot No. 1091, is situated within the Dhurwa(Hatia) Dam Catchmetn Area and is thus Public Land. The report confirmed that the petitioners, are unauthorized encroachers on this vital land. 13. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the land under Plot No. 1091 is officially recorded as the Catchment Area of the Dhruwa (Hatia) Dam and hence cannot be transferred to private individuals. The encroachment is conclusively deemed illegal in the official records. 14. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the subsequent purchase of the land by the petitioners, even if for a valuable consideration, cannot confer valid title over the land which is non-transferable Public Land, protected under the Jharkhand Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956.” [ 26. Further, so far as the case of petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 6348 of 2025 is concerned, notice was issued to the petitioners but so far as the case of petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 6169 of 2025 is concerned, although the notice was issued but it has been contended that the list annexed to the said notice did not contain the name of the petitioner or his wife. 27. But, this Court is not in agreement with the said submission due to the reason that the same land in question, the part of Plot No. 1091, which as per the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No. 6348 of 2025 is also of the same plot which is having in the catchment area of the land, then, merely because the notice did not contain the name of the petitioner or his wife, the matter cannot be decided in favour of the petitioner in view of the fact that the land has already been acquired as also the same is in the catchment area of Dhurwa Dam which is a source of water supply to the local residents of the district of Ranchi. 28. The fact about the acquisition of land since has not been disputed and as such, even though if the notice will be issued the same will be only empty formality and futile exercise. The aforesaid issue has been taken into consideration by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Escorts Farms Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, U.P. & others, (2004) 4 SCC 281, wherein at paragraph no.64 it has been held which reads as under: “64. Right of hearing to a necessary party is a valuable right. Denial of such right is serious breach of statutory procedure prescribed and violation of rules of natural justice. In these appeals preferred by the holder of lands and some other transferees, we have found that the terms of government grant did not permit transfers of land without permission of the State as grantor. Remand of cases of a group of transferees who [2026:JHHC:426-DB] Page | 7 were not heard, would, therefore, be of no legal consequence, more so, when on this legal question all affected parties have got full opportunity of hearing before the High Court and in this appeal before this Court. Rules of natural justice are to be followed for doing substantial justice and not for completing a mere ritual of hearing without possibility of any change in the decision of the case on merits. In view of the legal position explained by us above, we therefore, refrain from remanding these cases in exercise of our discretionary powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.” 29. In Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and Ors., (2015) 8 SCC 519, their Lordships have held at paragraph-39 which is being reproduced as under: “39. We are not concerned with these aspects in the present case as the issue relates to giving of notice before taking action. While emphasizing that the principles of natural justice cannot be applied in straitjacket formula, the aforesaid instances are given. We have highlighted the jurisprudential basis of adhering to the principles of natural justice which are grounded on the doctrine of procedural fairness, accuracy of outcome leading to general social goals, etc. Nevertheless, there may be situations wherein for some reason- perhaps because the evidence against the individual is thought to be utterly compelling- it is felt that a fair hearing “would make no difference”- meaning that a hearing would not change the ultimate conclusion reached by the decision maker.” 30. This Court has also gone through the letter no. 1409 dated 02.12.2025 issued under the signature of Circle Officer, Nagri, Ranchi which is annexed as Annexure-B to the supplementary counter affidavit filed in another case, i.e., W.P.(PIL) No. 1325 of 2011 wherein the reference of the plot in question herein, i.e., situated in Mauza-Balalong, Khata No.114, R.S. Plot No. 1091, District-Ranchi finds mention as encroached land. 31. This Court, considering the fact that the documents which are being relied upon by the petitioners in support of their title over the land in question which cannot be said to be reliable one since the said land/plot had already been acquired as also is coming under the fold of catchment area and the petitioners have constructed their houses over the said land, as such, the both the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. 32. It would be relevant to mention here that it is also a case of like nature as that of W.P.(PIL) No. 4736 of 2018 and analogous cases wherein the construction over the acquired land for the purpose of establishment of RIMS was allowed and in order to put deterrent upon the revenue authority or the registering authority or the map sanctioning authority or [2026:JHHC:426-DB] Page | 8 the authority of RERA, etc., we have passed an order of registering FIR and investigation be done by the Anti-Corruption Bureau by refraining ourselves from handing over the case to the CBI, for the present, in the backdrop of the fact that the authorities while creating the documents, have committed gross illegality as they being the public servant are supposed to protect the public land. Relevant part of the order is being referred as under: “26. On similar line, this Court can also handover the investigation to the CBI in the present scenario but, for the present, we are refraining ourself in handing over the investigation to the CBI rather this Court is directing the State Police to institute FIR and investigation be conducted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau against the erring officials. 27. Further, departmental proceeding be also initiated against them who are found to be involved in either registration of the land in the name of the subsequent transferee(s); or manipulation of the revenue record(s), or issuing rent receipt(s) or issuing non-incumbrance certificate(s); or sanctioning the building plan(s)/map(s) as to how the Government Land has been allowed to be transferred in the name of a third party. 28. This Court is also of the view that if these officials would have been vigilant then there would not have been suffering of the people who are now suffering due to the demolition of the illegal construction over the acquired land of the RIMS, i.e., the government acquired land. 29. This Court is also of the view that the residents, whose residences have/are being demolished, are also entitled to be compensated but the question is that why the State Exchequer should be made to bear the expenses of compensating the affected persons due to the illegality committed by the officials of the State, Municipal Corporation etc. etc. and why not the erring officials and the builders who have allowed the construction over the acquired Government Land or constructed the multi- storey building(s). 30. Accordingly, the State is directed to fix accountability on each and every official who is involved in the said mal-practices and adequately compensate the residents/affected persons whose construction(s) have been demolished which expenses as observed above shall be borne by these erring officials and the builders.” 33. As would appear from the factual aspect of the present case, herein also, the same illegality has been committed by creating documents, i.e., rent receipts, deed of registration, etc. etc. of the acquired land and based upon the same, one or the other petitioners have constructed their houses over the acquired land and are claiming their title which is also coming under the fold of catchment area of Dhurwa Dam. 34. It has been informed by the learned State counsel today that in pursuance of the direction passed in W.P.(PIL) No. 4736 of 2018 and analogous [2026:JHHC:426-DB] Page | 9 cases vide order dated 20.12.2025, FIR has already been instituted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau. 35. Likewise in the instant case also, this Court is refraining itself from handing over the case to the CBI rather, deems it fit and proper to direct the State Police to institute FIR and investigation be conducted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau against the erring officials. 36. Accordingly, the State Police is directed to institute FIR and investigation be conducted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau against the erring officials. 37. Further, departmental proceeding be also initiated against them who are found to be involved in either registration of the land in the name of the subsequent transferee(s); or manipulation of the revenue record(s), or issuing rent receipt(s) or issuing non-incumbrance certificate(s); or sanctioning the building plan(s)/map(s) as to how the acquired land has been allowed to be transferred in the name of a third party. 38. With the aforesaid observation and direction, both the writ petitions are hereby, dismissed. 39. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands dismissed. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.) (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) 07th January, 2026 Saurabh/- Uploaded on: 09.01.2026