Ranchi, Aug 5 (IANS) In a setback to the Jharkhand Government, the High Court has dismissed the state’s appeal against an order directing compensation to a shopkeeper whose establishment was demolished by the administration using a bulldozer without following due legal process.
A division bench of Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar upheld the earlier ruling, observing that the demolition was carried out without legal authority and amounted to a misuse of government power.
The court directed the Deputy Commissioner of Chatra district to deposit the compensation amount of Rs 5.25 lakh with the High Court Registry within one week.
It clarified that the responsibility for ensuring timely compliance would rest personally with the Deputy Commissioner. Once the amount is deposited, the affected shopkeeper will be entitled to receive the compensation after furnishing proof of identity and bank account details.
The case pertains to a shop owned by Chatra resident Rajendra Prasad Sahu, also known as Rajendra Prasad Shaundik. In a petition filed before the High Court in 2011, he alleged that the administration had demolished his shop without issuing any notice and without adhering to the prescribed legal procedure.
Following hearings in the matter, a single-judge bench of the High Court, on June 27, 2024, ordered the state government to pay Rs 5 lakh towards the cost of reconstructing the shop and an additional Rs 25,000 for mental agony, taking the total compensation to Rs 5.25 lakh.
The court had directed that the amount be paid within six weeks. However, the government failed to comply with the order and subsequently challenged it before a Division Bench, while the petitioner also initiated contempt proceedings.
During the appeal hearing, the state government contended that the land on which the shop stood had been acquired in 1914 and sought permission to place certain historical documents on record.
The High Court, however, noted that despite the litigation continuing for nearly 13 years, the government had failed to produce any such documents earlier. It held that attempts to introduce fresh evidence at the final appellate stage could not be permitted.
It further observed that the documents relied upon by the state did not conclusively establish that they related to the disputed land.
It also questioned why the government had never challenged the mutation of the land, which had been effected on the basis of a registered sale deed executed in 1973.
In view of these shortcomings, the court refused to interfere with the compensation order passed by the single-judge’s bench.
–IANS
snc/skp/vd
