Executive Authority Is Precluded From Evicting Or Determining Title To Land; Only Civil Courts Can: Jharkhand HC
The Jharkhand High Court held that a Circle Officer cannot unilaterally determine the title of the government to subject land.
The Jharkhand High Court held that the doctrine of separation of powers precludes an Executive Authority from evicting or determining the title to land as only a civil court can do so.
The Court set aside the impugned proceedings wherein the Circle Office issued an eviction notice directing the Appellant to vacate the land, which he claimed he was the lawful owner of. The Bench held that a Circle Officer cannot unilaterally determine the title of the government to the subject land.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan held, “However no provision of law is quoted in the order dt.6.8.2020 which empowers the Circle Officer, Fatehpur to determine the title to the land in the occupation of the appellant or to evict the appellant. the doctrine of separation of powers, precludes the Circle officer, who is a member of the Executive branch of the Government from exercising judicial powers…Thus his order is without jurisdiction.”
Advocate Shresth Gautam represented the Appellant, while Advocate Aditya Kumar appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Appellant had submitted that the said land was granted to his grandfather in 1957 under the Bhoodan Yagna Scheme by the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Committee and a donation certificate was also issued in the name of his grandfather. It was further submitted that the mutation was also allowed by a Court.
The Appellant argued that the impugned eviction notice had no backing of law as the Circle Officer had no jurisdiction to evict him.
Court’s Reasoning
The Bench noted that the impugned order passed by the Circle Officer indicated that the Appellant was in possession of the subject land and had even constructed a boundary wall therein but it was contended that the same is an ‘encroachment’. It further noted that the Circle officer had held that the Appellant and his descendants were not the original ‘raiyats’ of the land.
“Admittedly, the possession of the appellant is long standing as evidenced by the mutation order given by the revenue authorities in his grandfather’s favour in 1962-63. So there is a Bonafide dispute of title. Therefore summary eviction of appellant could not have been done without following due process of law,” the Court explained,
“We fail to understand how the Circle Officer could determine whether a document is fake or not as he is not conferred the power of the civil court to decide the genuineness of document or whether it is a forgery,” the Bench remarked.
In line with the same, the Court held, “We are also of the opinion that the Circle Officer cannot unilaterally determine the title of the government to the subject land and only the civil court can do.”
Consequently, the Court held, “For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed with cost of Rs. One Lakh to be paid by the 1st respondent to the appellant; the impugned proceedings…are all set-aside and declared to be proceedings issued without jurisdiction and null and void.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Ganesh Burman @ Ganesh Poddar v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. (L.P.A. No. 413 of 2024)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Shresth Gautam, Rahul Anand, Yogendra Yadav and Himanshu Harsh
Respondents: Advocate Aditya Kumar
