Jharkhand High Court quashes RMC eviction/demolition notices and condemns summary razing of dwellings where notices were arbitrarily framed/served (including on deceased persons)
SURESH TIRKEY & ORS. (SONU PASCAL EKKA) V. RANCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION / STATE OF JHARKHAND, LPA NOS. 143–144 OF 2022 (DIVISION BENCH: SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. & RATNAKER BHENGRA, J.)
Facts: The Ranchi Municipal Corporation (RMC) claimed about 2.80 acres (Khata No. 328; Plot Nos. 57–58) as municipal land and issued (i) a notice dated 25 Oct 2021, (ii) a “public notice” dated 23 Dec 2021 asking alleged encroachers to vacate within 72 hours, and (iii) a fresh notice dated 9 Apr 2022 giving 48 hours. The occupants including Sonu Pascal Ekka and Suresh Tirkey said they and their ancestors were recorded in the cadastral survey/khatiyan and had been in peaceful possession paying holding tax, etc. The writ petitions challenging the notices were heard and, according to the writ court, stayed initially (26 Dec 2021) but later dismissed (order dated 31 Mar 2022). After service of the 9 Apr 2022 notice, RMC’s demolition team, assisted by police and an Executive Magistrate, razed houses on 11 Apr 2022, displacing ~22 persons (including 8 children) and destroying household articles. The Division Bench-records describe (i) notices addressed even to deceased persons, (ii) inadequate identification of the exact encroached portions, (iii) very short notice periods and demolition during festivaltime, (iv) absence of a municipal register of properties and scant material showing RMC’s continuous possession, and (v) absence of proper pre-demolition procedure, raising grave procedural and rights-of-occupants concerns.
Issue(s): (1) Whether RMC lawfully exercised powers under Section 606(2) Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 to remove encroachments by issuing the impugned notices and ordering forcible eviction/demolition; (2) Whether the impugned notices complied with statutory service rules and basic principles of natural justice (reasonable time, valid addressee, opportunity to be heard, adequate identification of the land/structures to be removed); (3) Whether entries in the revisional survey record (R.S. record) under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy (CNT) framework could conclusively oust the occupants’ claims based on older cadastral/khatiyan entries and settled possession; and (4) Whether the demolition executed on 11 April 2022 was arbitrary/illegal and thus violative of Article 21 (right to shelter and life with dignity).
Rule: The Court applied: (a) statutory scheme, CNT Act (sections 83–84) on record-of-rights presumptions and the Jharkhand Municipal Act (notably sections 606, 493–496 on notices and service); (b) constitutional and precedent principles protecting settled possessory interests (cases holding that a person in settled possession cannot be forcibly dispossessed without due process, e.g., Munshi Ram / Lallu Yeshwant Singh / Sopan Sukhdeo Sable cited in the judgment); and (c) Article 21 jurisprudence recognizing the right to shelter and the need for the State to follow procedure established by law before depriving persons of domestic shelter. The Court emphasised that statutory presumptions (e.g., under section 84 CNT) are rebuttable and that municipal action must be bona fide, procedurally fair, and supported by demonstrable possession/records.
Analysis: The Division Bench conducted a fact-sensitive inquiry and found multiple defects:
· Notices/addressing: some notices were addressed to deceased persons and therefore were not validly directed; RMC failed to explain or demonstrate proper service and did not examine evidence produced by the occupants after the first notice.
· Short notice and haste: the 9 Apr 2022 notice was reportedly served c. 3:30 PM on 9 Apr and demolition teams began work on 11 Apr (less than 48 hours effectively elapsed); demolition happened during religious/vacation days and in a “tearing hurry,” suggesting lack of bona fides.
· Identification and procedure: notices did not identify the precise portions occupied by the appellants; photographs/advocate-commissioner reports showed dwellings in the middle of the larger area and that demolition was carried out without adequate identification or municipal register support. RMC admitted it had produced no municipal property register and had issued few such notices in the prior five years.
· Human impact and proportionality: demolition destroyed houses, household goods and displaced families (22 persons, including children), causing immediate hardship- heat wave conditions recorded after demolition. The Court held that even if encroachment remedies exist, the municipality must follow fair procedure and cannot summarily deprive people of shelter without adequate process.
· On title evidence: though section 84 CNT raises a presumption in favour of entries in the revisional survey record, that presumption is rebuttable; the occupants’ older cadastral entries and continuous possession could be relied upon to contest municipal claims, a factual trial/appropriate civil forum is the correct forum to resolve title disputes.
Given these cumulative defects (arbitrary addressing, inadequate service/time, lack of precise identification, absence of demonstrable municipal possession, and heavy human cost), the Court concluded RMC’s actions were tainted by procedural illegality and lacked the bona fides required of State action affecting shelter and dignity.
Conclusion: The Division Bench allowed LPA Nos. 143 & 144 of 2022, set aside the writ-court’s dismissal (order dated 31 Mar 2022), and quashed the notices dated 25 Oct 2021, 23 Dec 2021 and 9 Apr 2022. The appeals were allowed without costs. The Court’s orders also recorded strong factual findings about the manner and consequences of the demolition and reaffirmed the need for procedure and fairness before municipal dispossession.
