Why State Exchequer Be Made To Bear Expenses Of Compensation In Illegal Demolition Cases & Not Erring Officials?: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court has asked as to why the State Exchequer should be made to bear the expenses of compensating the affected persons due to illegal demolition and why not the erring officials.

The Court was hearing a Writ Petition in form of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and took cognizance of the case involving alleged illegal demolition.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad remarked, “This Court is also of the view that the residents, whose residences have/are being demolished, are also entitled to be compensated but the question is that why the State Exchequer should be made to bear the expenses of compensating the affected persons due to the illegality committed by the officials of the State, Municipal Corporation etc. etc. and why not the erring officials and the builders who have allowed the construction over the acquired Government Land or constructed the multi-storey building(s).”

The Bench said that if the officials would have been vigilant then there would not have been suffering of the people who are now suffering due to the demolition of the illegal construction over the acquired land of the RIMS, i.e., the government acquired land.

Advocates Indrajit Sinha and Kashish Tiwary were appointed as the Amicus Curiae. Senior Advocate Ajit Kumar appeared for the Intervenor. Advocate Saurav Arun appeared for the Petitioner, while AAG-II Sachin Kumar and Sr. SC-I Ashok Kumar Yadav appeared for the Respondents.

Brief Facts

It was pointed out by the counsel for the State that one Rakhee Nisha Oraon, wife of Ashish Singhmar was occupying “Kelly Bungalow No.2” of RIMS which was earlier allotted to her husband by the Government at the time when he was serving in the State of Jharkhand on deputation. However, thereafter, Singhmar was repatriated to this parent department, i.e., the State of Himachal Pradesh and the Bungalow was now being illegally occupied by his wife Rakhee, who herself though an IRS Officer and had earlier been on deputation in the State of Jharkhand but was repatriated and relieved on 09.04.2025 to join her parent department, i.e., the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi and this fact was not disputed by Rakhee before the Writ Court.

However, this premises was not allotted to her. Even the Writ Petition filed by Rakhee was dismissed by the Single Judge vide an Order dated 19.12.2025. It was further submitted that in such circumstances, Rakhee and/or anyone of her family members have no right, title and interest to retain the premises, i.e., “Kelly Bungalow No.2”, merely because she happens to be a high ranked government servant. Accordingly, Rakhee was directed to vacate the premises within 15 days by handing over peaceful possession to the management of RIMS, failing which she was liable to be forcibly evicted.

Court’s Observations

The High Court in the above regard, observed, “It needs to refer herein that this Court, taking into consideration that the authority/authorities who are at fault in permitting these residents in making constructions over the acquired land of RIMS, had made an observation in the order dated 11.12.2025 that appropriate order will be passed against the illegality committed by one or the other officials so that such thing may not be repeated in future.”

The Court noted that the administrative authority, in the light of the Order passed by the Court, has started removing the encroachment but the question is that how in the first place such construction has been allowed to be there in the acquired land which has been acquired way back in the year 1964-65.

“Further, the land in some of the cases has also been registered in the name of the subsequent transferee(s) and the revenue record(s) has been manipulated, rent receipt(s) have also been issued as also non incumbrance certificate(s) has also been issued. Even the building plan(s) has been sanctioned by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation and the same has also been approved by RERA and even the map for the multi-storey building(s) has been sanctioned”, it added.

The Court remarked that it is shocked to note at no stage, any query has been raised regarding the issue of title of the land by the concerned authorities and the land has been allowed to be transferred in favour of one or the other private party even though the land had already been acquired as has been dealt with in the various Orders as referred.

“There is no dispute and it otherwise cannot be disputed that while purchasing the land, it is also the duty and accountability of the purchaser to be more vigilant by going through the relevant documents so that they may not come under the clutches of the brokers before investing their hard-earned money”, it emphasised.

The Court said that the Circle Officers of the concerned circle without verifying the said record had entered the name of the subsequent purchaser(s), even though as per the Bihar Maintenance of Records Act, 1973, the circle officer is the custodian of the record.

“It is also surprising that the circle officer has placed the record before this Court but while entering the name of the litigant concerned at the relevant time, has not taken care to even consult much less verify the said record. … The question, therefore, is that if these officials will not be penalized, then, such things will again happen in future and some of the innocent persons may be made to suffer like in the present instance”, it added.

The Court further observed that even the concerned private/government bank have not followed the due procedure while sanctioning the loan amount for some of the construction, therefore, management of the said banks are hereby directed to do the proper enquiry against its erring officials.

“This Court is astounded to note as to what the RIMS authority were doing when the buildings were being constructed within the precincts of the RIMS. It is further more surprising to note that the instant public interest litigation is pending since 2018 but at no time even this Court has been informed about the encroachment within the precincts of the RIMS”, it also noted.

Conclusion

The Court ordered that the departmental proceeding be also initiated against the erring officials who are found to be involved in either registration of the land in the name of the subsequent transferee(s); or manipulation of the revenue record(s), or issuing rent receipt(s) or issuing non-incumbrance certificate(s); or sanctioning the building plan(s)/map(s) as to how the Government Land has been allowed to be transferred in the name of a third party.

“… the State is directed to fix accountability on each and every official who is involved in the said mal-practices and adequately compensate the residents/affected persons whose construction(s) have been demolished which expenses as observed above shall be borne by these erring officials and the builders”, it directed and concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court issued necessary directions and posted the case on January 6, 2026.

Cause Title- Jyoti Sharma v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. (Case Number: W.P.(PIL) No. 4736 of 2018)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Advocates Saurav Arun, Deepak Kr. Dubey, and Rashi Sharma.

Respondents: AAG-II Sachin Kumar, Sr. SC-I Ashok Kumar Yadav, AC Abhijeet Anand, Advocates Ashok Kumar Singh, Nipun Bakshi, Sharon Toppo, and Khalida Haya Rashmi.

Click here to read/download the Judgment