Jharkhand High Court orders State to pay ₹5 lakh compensation for bulldozing man's shops

The Jharkhand High Court on Thursday ordered the State government to pay ₹5 lakhs 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 ₹25,000 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.The Court emphasised that the State authorities are subject to the principle of etat de troit, which lays down that all actions of the State must be carried out within the limits set by the law and the Constitution.The Court pointed out that natural justice principles must be complied with and an opportunity of hearing be given to persons affected before such actions are taken. "This Court therefore, is of the opinion 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 said.It also emphasised that although the right to property is no longer a fundamental right, it is still protected as a Constitutional right. "The right to property is no longer a fundamental right, but it is still a constitutional right and a human right, and no person shall be deprived of his property save in accordance with law. Even though the right to property is no longer a fundamental right and was never a natural right, it has to be accepted that without the right to property, other rights become illusory," the Court's June 27 ruling stated..By way of background, 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 favor 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.The State, in response, maintained that the demolished structures were encroachments and that Sahu had no right to acquire the land on which they were built. .After examining rival arguments, the Court ruled in favour of Sahu and ordered the State authority to pay compensation for the reconstruction of the demolished property and for the metal pain suffered by the petitioner..Advocates Ayush Aditya and Akash Deep appeared for the petitioner, while Government Advocate Manoj Kumar and Advocate Rakesh Kr. Roy represented the State..[Read Order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.