High Court cannot demolish anyone’s house without legal process, Jharkhand High Court on bulldozer action
On Monday, a hearing was held in the Jharkhand High Court regarding the notice issued to Ashok Kumar by the CEO of Garhwa. The High Court said that no person’s house can be demolished without completing the legal process. Actually, the CEO had asked the applicant to show all the documents of his house within 24 hours. It was also said that failure to do so would be considered as encroachment.
In this case, Ashok Kumar of Garhwa had filed a petition, after hearing which the court gave this direction. During the hearing, the High Court said that if the government feels that the construction of housing is illegal and there has been encroachment, then action can be taken only after completing all the procedures as per law. With this the court executed the order.
All documents were asked for within 24 hours
During the hearing, the court was told on behalf of the applicant that on March 10, 2024, the CEO of Garhwa issued a notice directing him to produce all the documents of the house within 24 hours. It was said that non-presentation of documents would be considered as encroachment. The applicant submitted all the documents to the CEO on March 11. After this, Circle Inspector and Gadhaya reached the residence along with Sadar Police. Measured the house and applied red stain. The applicant had filed a petition against this in the High Court.
The High Court on Monday rejected the government’s appeal to dismiss Ved Prakash Singh, the outgoing councilor of Ward 39 of Ranchi Municipal Corporation, from the post of councilor. The division bench of the High Court upheld the order of the single bench. Abhishek Kumar and the government had filed an appeal petition against Ved Prakash.
Ved Prakash was accused of hiding facts. The Urban Development Department got it investigated. After investigation, the department had dismissed Ved Prakash from the post of councilor. Ved Prakash went to the High Court against this. After the hearing, the single bench canceled the order of the Urban Development Department and directed to reinstate him on the post. The government had filed an appeal in the division bench against the order of the single bench.
