Ranchi, August 5, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)
The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed the state government’s appeal against an order directing payment of compensation to a shopkeeper whose establishment was demolished by the administration through a bulldozer without following the due legal procedure.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar upheld the earlier order, observing that the demolition was carried out without legal authority and amounted to misuse of government power.
The court directed the Deputy Commissioner of Chatra district to deposit ₹5.25 lakh with the High Court Registry within one week. It also made the Deputy Commissioner personally responsible for ensuring timely compliance with the order.
The affected shopkeeper, Rajendra Prasad Sahu, also known as Rajendra Prasad Shaundik, had approached the High Court in 2011 alleging that his shop was demolished by the administration without issuing any notice and without following the prescribed legal process.
On June 27, 2024, a single-judge bench had directed the state government to pay ₹5 lakh towards reconstruction of the shop and an additional ₹25,000 as compensation for mental agony suffered by the petitioner.
Although the court had ordered payment within six weeks, the government did not comply and later challenged the decision before the Division Bench. The petitioner also initiated contempt proceedings over non-compliance.
During the appeal hearing, the state government argued that the land on which the shop stood had been acquired in 1914 and sought permission to place historical documents on record.
The High Court rejected the plea, noting that despite the matter remaining under litigation for nearly 13 years, the government had failed to produce those documents earlier. The court observed that fresh evidence could not be introduced at the final appellate stage.
The Bench further stated that the documents submitted by the state did not conclusively establish their connection with the disputed land. It also questioned why the government had not challenged the mutation of the property carried out on the basis of a registered sale deed executed in 1973.
Finding no grounds to interfere with the single-judge order, the High Court dismissed the state’s appeal and upheld the compensation direction.
FOLLOW NOW
