Sudhir Kumar Jha, S/o Late K.N. Jha vs State Of Jharkhand

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the general notice dated 27.03.2011 published in the daily newspaper ‘The Hindustan’ at Serial No. 62 by which, the members of the petitioner’s Association was directed to remove their shops situated at Jharnapara, Dhanbad purported to be issued in compliance with the order passed in W.P. (PIL) No. 1872/2010.

Petitioner claims to be the Secretary of Visthapith Footpath Dukandar Kalyan Sangh, Dhanbad.

As per the case of the petitioner, rehabilitation applications were invited from the displaced footpath shopkeepers by the Zila Parishad vide Letter No. 1156 dated 11.08.1992 and an interview was also scheduled to be held on 25.08.1992. Pursuant to it, interview was conducted on 25.08.1992 and 26.08.1992  and  the  lands  were  allotted  vide  Letter  No.  1748  dated 07.11.1992. Forty-four shopkeepers constructed their shops over the allotted land and started to pay rent to the Zila Parishad (receipt has been annexed as Annexure-4).

The main grievance of the petitioner is that the land which was allotted was encroached by some outsiders and unauthorized persons. Despite the representations being made, encroachment was not removed.

It is further case that the unauthorized persons made construction over the said land and in the meantime, W.P. (PIL) No. 5926/2009 was filed for removing encroachment from the land of the Zila Parishad.

It is contended that 30 shops were constructed by the members of the petitioners pursuant to the allotment made by the Zila Parishad.

The sum and substance of the petitioner’s case is that the shops were allotted to the members of the displaced shopkeepers Association, but notice was issued for removal of the encroachment from the said land. However, no letter has been annexed to show that land was allotted by the Zila Parishad in the name of the Members of the Samiti and neither their names have been disclosed.

In the instant writ petition, the name of the allottees has not been stated, the allotment letter, by which they were allotted the land, is also not mentioned or brought on record. Unless a case of subsisting right is made out with corresponding duty of the State, a command in the nature of writ of mandamus cannot be issued (see State of U.P. & Anr. v. U.P. Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti & Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 675).

Under the circumstance, the writ petition is not sustainable and accordingly, stands dismissed.

Pending I.A., if any stands disposed of.