The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed the State's appeal against an order directing it to compensate a shop owner whose premises were demolished without authority of law, holding that the appeal was “an abuse of the judicial process” and appeared to have been filed only because officials feared recovery proceedings against them.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar observed that the State had failed to produce any title documents for over 13 years during the writ proceedings and attempted to introduce century-old documents only after the Single Judge's order and the initiation of contempt proceedings.

The appeal arose from a Single Judge's order dated June 27, 2024, directing the State to pay ₹5 lakh towards reconstruction costs and ₹25,000 for mental agony after finding that State authorities had, “in a high-handed manner,” demolished the respondent's shop. Despite the expiry of over two years, the State had not complied with the order, prompting the respondent to initiate contempt proceedings.

Before the Division Bench, the State sought permission to place on record documents allegedly showing that the land in question had been acquired by the Government in 1914. According to the State, these documents justified the demolition and demonstrated that the property belonged to it.

Rejecting the attempt, the Court noted that no satisfactory explanation had been offered for why such documents were never produced during the 13 years the writ petition remained pending. It further observed that the documents themselves did not clearly establish that they related to the disputed property or explain subsequent transactions, including the respondent's purchase of the property through a registered sale deed in 1973 and the mutation of his name in government records. The High Court noted:

“This appeal is an abuse of the judicial process and a poor attempt by the officials who apprehend that responsibility would be fixed upon them and they would be made liable for the compensation and the cost awarded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order.”

The Bench remarked that the belated effort to “virtually smuggle documents” into the appellate proceedings only compounded the State's conduct.

It also endorsed the Single Judge's finding that the demolition was “nothing but a high-handed action of the State” carried out “without any authority of law and by abusing the governmental powers.”

Noting that the compensation awarded was, if anything, on the lower side, the Court nevertheless declined to interfere with the impugned order. Since the State had undertaken before the Bench to deposit the compensation amount of ₹5.25 lakh within a week, the Court directed compliance within that period and made the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra personally responsible for ensuring the deposit. The respondent was permitted to withdraw the amount upon verification.

Case Title: State of Jharkhand and Ors v. Rejendra Prasad Sahu @ zRajendra Prasad Shaundik

Case No.: L.P.A. No. 75 of 2025 (with I.A. No. 15213 of 2025)

Appearance: Mr. Ashutosh Anand and Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar for the Appellants; Mr. Ayush Aditya for the Respondent.

Click Here To Read/Download Order