"State Is To Obey The Law": Jharkhand HC Directs State To Pay ₹5L Compensation For Illegal Demolition Of Shops
The Jharkhand High Court has ordered the State government to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation for the illegal demolition of a privately owned structure encompassing five shops. The Court further directed the State to pay Rs. 25,000 as a solatium for the mental anguish and suffering endured by the shop owner on account of the State's arbitrary and high-handed actions.
In that context, the Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi 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. 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. The respondent authority is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- by way of compensation for the mental pain and agony suffered to the petitioner on account of illegal act and high-handedness of the respondent authority."
In 1973, Rajendra Prasad Sahu acquired cultivation land. By 1997, he had constructed five shops on the aforementioned land and consistently tendered rent payments to the prior owner, receiving official receipts in return. However, a mutation entry reflecting his ownership was cancelled by the Sub Divisional Officer of Chatra in 1988, effectively nullifying his recognized title. Sahu successfully challenged this decision, and the Additional Collector reinstated the mutation entry in his name in 1990.
Subsequent difficulties arose 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 compelling the acceptance of rent and issuance of the necessary receipts. In 2006, the Circle Officer demanded the production of documents pertaining to the land. Despite Sahu's compliance in furnishing the required documents, the Circle Officer recommended cancellation of the existing Jamabandi on May 23, 2006.
In response, Sahu filed a writ petition contesting the Circle Officer's recommendation and seeking to reaffirm his rightful ownership and tenancy of the land. The court initially dismissed the petition on the basis that no final order had been issued at that time. The petitioner subsequently presented the case before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, who reversed the Circle Officer's decision and declared that the Jamabandi should be maintained.
However, the district administration demolished the petitioner's five shops in 2011 without adhering to 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 demolished his shops.
The State countered by asserting that the structures were illegal encroachments and that the petitioner possessed no legitimate claim to the land. After considering both arguments, 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 noted 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."
The High Court took the considered view that, "it is crystal clear that it is not in dispute that the property in question was in possession of the petitioner on a valid purchase which was mutated and the shop was constructed on a sanctioned map and the action of the respondent-State is arbitrary and the shop in question was demolished without following the due process of law without any proceeding was well as providing hearing opportunity which is violation of principle of natural justice."
Cause Title: Rajendra Prasad Sahu @ Rajendra Prasad Shaundik vs The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Click here to read/download the Judgment
