Jharkhand High Court Orders State To Pay ₹5 Lakhs Compensation For Illegal Demolition Of Shops, Additional ₹25K For Mental Agony Of Shop Owner

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, who presided over the case, stated, “It is established that in such a circumstance the action of the authority in demolishing the shops is nothing but totally illegal, arbitrary and whimsical. It is well settled that the State or its authorities are subject to "etat de droit", i.e. the State is submitted to the law which implies that all actions of the State or its authority and officials must be carried out subject to the constitution and within the limits set by the law.”

“In other words the State is to obey the law. It is equally well settled that executive or administrative order which involves civil consequences must be made in conformity with the rule of natural justice, which at least requires notice and opportunity of hearing to the person affected thereby,” Justice Dwivedi added.

Justice Dwivedi thus opined that the action of the authority was illegal and violative of all principles of the 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. As such this Court comes to the conclusion that it is a fit case where an appropriate writ should be issued directing the respondent authority to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000,00/- being the cost of construction at that point of time. However, if the direction is issued to reconstruct the said demolition the cost will be much higher,” he held.

In 1973, Rajendra Prasad Sahu purchased raiyat land, a type of cultivation land on which tenants can acquire occupancy rights. By 1997, he had built five shops on this land and had consistently paid rent to the ex-landlord, for which he received official rent receipts.

However, in 1988, the Sub Divisional Officer of Chatra cancelled a mutation entry that was in Sahu's favour, effectively nullifying his recognized ownership of the property. Sahu challenged this decision and, in 1990, the Additional Collector ruled in his favour, reinstating the mutation entry in his name.

Troubles resurfaced in 2005 when the Circle Officer of Chatra municipality ceased issuing rent receipts to Sahu and refused to accept his rent payments. Sahu sought intervention from the Deputy Commissioner of Chatra, requesting an order to accept rent and issue the necessary receipts.

In 2006, the Circle Officer demanded that Sahu produce documents related to the land. Despite Sahu complying with and presenting the required documents, the Circle Officer recommended cancelling the existing Jamabandi (land revenue records detailing land ownership) on May 23, 2006.

In response, Sahu filed a writ petition in court, challenging the Circle Officer's recommendation and seeking to reaffirm his rightful ownership and tenancy of the land.

The court initially dismissed the petition, citing that no final order had been issued at that time. The petitioner subsequently brought the case before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, who overturned the Circle Officer's decision and declared that the Jamabandi should continue.

However, in 2011, the district administration demolished the petitioner's five shops without following due legal procedures, issuing notices, or obtaining a court order. This prompted the petitioner to seek relief from the High Court, arguing that the district administration had unlawfully bulldozed his shops.

In response, the State contended that the structures were illegal encroachments and that the petitioner had no rightful claim to the land. After considering both sides, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, ordering the State to compensate him for the reconstruction of his demolished property and the mental distress he suffered.

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.

"It is made clear that aforesaid direction of cost of construction and compensation for mental pain shall be complied by the State through the respondent nos. 2 and 3 within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order," the Court concluded while allowing the writ petition.

Case Title: Rajendra Prasad Sahu V. State of Jharkhand and Others

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 102

Click Here To Read The Order