The Jharkhand High Court on Thursday ordered the State government to pay Rs5 lakh as compensation for illegally bulldozing a privately owned building with five shops (Rajendra Prasad Sahu V. State of Jharkhand and Others).
The Court also directed the State to pay an additional Rs25,000 for the mental pain and agony suffered by the shop owner on account of the State's high-handed actions. A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi condemned the State's action, terming it totally illegal, arbitrary and whimsical.
For the Petitioner Ayush Aditya, Advocate Akash Deep, Advocate, for the State Manoj Kumar, G.A.-III Rakesh Kr. Roy, A.C. to G.A.-III pleaded in Court.
As per case details the petitioner, Rajendra Prasad Sahu had built five shops in 1997 on raiyat land (cultivation land over which a tenant may acquire occupancy rights) purchased by him in 1973.
The petitioner also paid rent to the ex-landlord as part of the raiyat land transfer arrangement, for which he received rent receipts. In 1988, the Sub Divisional Officer, Chatra, cancelled a mutation entry (updating of land revenue records to reflect a change in ownership of property) which was in favour of the petitioner.
The petitioner filed an appeal challenging this move before the Additional Collector, which was allowed on in 1990, thereby restoring the mutation entry in the petitioner's name.
However, in 2005 the Circle Officer, Chatra municipality, stopped issuing rent receipts to the petitioner.
Despite attempts to deposit rent, the officer refused to accept it. The petitioner, then filed a representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, requesting an order to accept rent and issue receipts. Thereafter in 2006, the Circle Officer issued a notice asking Sahu to present documents related to the land.
Despite presenting the necessary documents, the Circle Officer recommended the cancellation of the running Jamabandi (land revenue records which also contains details of land ownership) on May 23, 2006. Challenging the Circle Officer's decision, the petitioner filed a writ petition in court.
The court disposed of the petition, noting that no final order had been passed at that stage. The petitioner then contested the matter before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector who set aside the Circle Officer's order, stating that the Jamabandi should continue.
However, in 2011, the district administration demolished the five shops constructed by the petitioner without initiating any legal proceedings, issuing any notice, or having any court order authorizing the demolition.
This led the petitioner to move the High Court again for relief. He told the High Court that his shops were forcibly bulldozed by the district administration without following the procedure of law.
This Court in its opinion observed that the action of the authority was illegal and violative of all principles of rule of law which has certainly caused mental pain and injury to the petitioner besides material damages to his property. Such action of the authority must be deprecated.
The Court in its order emphasized that although the right to property is no longer a fundamental right, it remains a constitutional and human right. Therefore, no one shall be deprived of their property except in accordance with the law.
Additionally, the Court noted that even though the right to property is not a fundamental right and has never been a natural right, it must be acknowledged that without it, other rights can become meaningless. The protection provided by Article 300A of the Constitution of India is available to any person, including legal or juristic persons, and is not limited solely to citizens.
