Ayodhya Saw vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through Chief Secretary

Facts

The petitioners, who had been 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 lacked title to 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 that a Second Appeal (No. 146/2024) against this order was pending before the High Court without any interim relief.

Held

The Court held that Respondent No. 2, the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Dhanbad, lacked the authority to issue the impugned eviction notices. The Court reasoned that given the pending Second Appeal (No. 146/2024) concerning the title of the land, and the District Judge's prior order confirming the title of Damodar Chandrajeu Thakur, Respondent No. 2 could not unilaterally assert its rights and proceed with eviction. The Court emphasized that even if the petitioners were in illegal occupation, they were entitled to be evicted following due process of law, citing the principle that even trespassers cannot be forcibly evicted. The manner in which the notices were issued was also found to be against the doctrine of fair play. Therefore, the impugned letters were quashed and set aside. Respondent No. 2 was granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings for eviction, contingent upon the outcome of the Second Appeal. The claim for refund of rent deposited by the petitioners was also made subject to the final outcome of the Second 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 before this Court? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that Respondent No. 2 has no right, title, or interest over the land in question, as evidenced by the District Judge's order in Civil Appeal No. 164 of 2019. They argued that without establishing title, Respondent No. 2 cannot unilaterally decide its rights and proceed with eviction. They also argued that the eviction process followed was against the principles of natural justice and fair play, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Meghmala & Ors. Vs. G. Narashimha Reddy & Ors. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the Revenue or State regarding the jurisdiction of Respondent No. 2. However, it notes that Respondent No. 2 contended that a Second Appeal had been preferred before the High Court against the District Judge's order.