Md. Liyakhat Ansari vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through Chief Secretary

Facts

Multiple petitioners, who were in possession of shops for approximately 18 years, received eviction notices from the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Dhanbad (Respondent No. 2). These notices demanded payment of rent amounting to Rs. 43,890.00 with 18% GST (total Rs. 51,790.00) and directed them to vacate the shops, alleging illegal encroachment. The petitioners challenged these notices, arguing that Respondent No. 2 had no title or interest in the land. They relied on a District Judge's order in Civil Appeal No. 164 of 2019, which confirmed the right, title, and interest of Damodar Chandrajeu Thakur over the land. Respondent No. 2 admitted to filing a Second Appeal against this order, which was pending without any interim relief.

Held

The Court held that Respondent No. 2, the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Dhanbad, lacked the jurisdiction to issue the impugned eviction notices. The Court reasoned that given the pending Second Appeal (No. 146 of 2004) concerning the title of the land, and the District Judge's prior order confirming the title of Damodar Chandrajeu Thakur, Respondent No. 2 had no established title at present. The Court emphasized that in cases of bonafide disputes regarding title between government entities and private individuals, unilateral decisions by the government to evict long-term occupants are impermissible. Furthermore, the Court found the manner of issuing eviction notices, demanding vacation within three days, to be against the doctrine of fair play, even if the occupation was illegal. The Court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Meghmala & Ors. Vs. G. Narashimha Reddy & Ors. for the principle that even trespassers must be evicted following due procedure. Consequently, the impugned letters were quashed. Respondent No. 2 was granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings after the outcome of the Second Appeal, and the claim for refund of deposited rent was made subject to the final outcome of that appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether Respondent No. 2, the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Dhanbad, has the jurisdiction to issue eviction notices and demand rent from the petitioners for shops situated on land where its title is disputed and has been challenged in a pending Second Appeal (Section 146 of 2004)? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that Respondent No. 2 lacks the right, title, and interest over the land in question, and therefore, has no jurisdiction to issue eviction notices. They cited the District Judge's order in Civil Appeal No. 164 of 2019, which confirmed the title of Damodar Chandrajeu Thakur, and highlighted that Respondent No. 2 was a party to that appeal. They argued that Respondent No. 2 should have awaited the outcome of its pending Second Appeal before taking any coercive action. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by Respondent No. 2 regarding its jurisdiction or title. However, it notes that Respondent No. 2 contended that a Second Appeal had been preferred against the District Judge's order.