Introduction:
In State of Jharkhand and Others v. Rajendra Prasad Sahu @ Rajendra Prasad Shaundik (L.P.A. No. 75 of 2025), the Jharkhand High Court strongly condemned the State Government for challenging an order directing compensation to a shop owner whose premises had been demolished without authority of law. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar dismissed the State’s appeal, holding that it amounted to an abuse of the judicial process and appeared to have been filed only because the concerned officials feared that recovery proceedings might be initiated against them for the illegal demolition.
The dispute originated from the demolition of the respondent’s shop by government authorities. Claiming that the demolition had been carried out without any legal authority, the respondent approached the High Court seeking compensation. After examining the material on record, the Single Judge held that the State had acted in a high-handed and arbitrary manner by demolishing the shop without following due process of law. By an order dated 27 June 2024, the Single Judge directed the State to pay ₹5 lakh towards reconstruction of the demolished shop and ₹25,000 as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the respondent.
Despite the lapse of more than two years, the State neither complied with the order nor paid the compensation, compelling the respondent to initiate contempt proceedings. During the appellate proceedings, the State attempted to introduce new documents allegedly showing that the disputed land had been acquired by the Government in 1914. The principal question before the Division Bench was whether such belated evidence could justify interference with the compensation awarded for an admittedly unauthorised demolition.
Arguments of the Parties:
The State contended that the Single Judge had erred in awarding compensation without considering documents showing that the disputed land had vested in the Government following an acquisition carried out in 1914. It sought permission to place these documents on record before the Division Bench, arguing that they conclusively established government ownership of the land and therefore justified the demolition carried out by the authorities.
The appellants submitted that the documents had substantial bearing on the controversy and deserved to be considered in the interest of justice. According to the State, if these historical records were examined, it would become evident that the respondent had no legal right over the property and consequently was not entitled to compensation.
The respondent opposed the appeal, contending that the State had failed to produce these documents during the entire period in which the writ petition remained pending before the Single Judge. It was argued that after suffering an adverse judgment and facing contempt proceedings for non-compliance, the authorities had attempted to introduce fresh documents solely to avoid liability arising from their illegal actions.
The respondent further submitted that he had purchased the property through a registered sale deed in 1973 and that his name had been duly mutated in the government records. Throughout the writ proceedings, the State had never produced any title documents contradicting these facts. Therefore, the attempt to rely upon century-old documents at the appellate stage was legally impermissible and demonstrated the arbitrary conduct of the authorities.
Court’s Judgment:
The Jharkhand High Court dismissed the appeal and strongly criticised the conduct of the State authorities. The Division Bench observed that the appeal constituted an abuse of the judicial process and appeared to have been filed merely to protect the concerned officials from possible recovery proceedings arising out of the compensation awarded by the Single Judge.
The Court noted that the writ petition had remained pending for more than thirteen years, during which the State had every opportunity to produce any documents supporting its claim of ownership. However, no such material was placed before the Single Judge despite repeated opportunities. The Bench found no satisfactory explanation for why documents allegedly dating back to 1914 surfaced only after the compensation order had been passed and contempt proceedings had commenced.
Rejecting the State’s application to produce additional documents, the Court observed that appellate proceedings cannot be converted into an opportunity to fill evidentiary gaps left by a party during the original proceedings. It remarked that the attempt to virtually “smuggle” documents into the appeal only reinforced the arbitrary manner in which the authorities had conducted themselves.
The Bench further held that even the newly produced documents did not conclusively establish that they related to the disputed property. More importantly, they failed to explain how the respondent had acquired the property through a registered sale deed in 1973 or why his name had subsequently been mutated in the official revenue records. These circumstances significantly weakened the State’s claim that the land indisputably belonged to the Government.
The Court endorsed the findings recorded by the Single Judge that the demolition was a high-handed exercise of governmental power undertaken without any authority of law. The Bench reiterated that State authorities are bound by the rule of law and cannot demolish private property without following the procedure established by law. Arbitrary exercise of executive power resulting in destruction of private property directly violates constitutional guarantees and entitles the affected person to compensation.
The Division Bench also observed that the compensation awarded by the Single Judge was, in fact, modest considering the nature of the illegal action and the hardship suffered by the respondent. Nevertheless, since the respondent had not challenged the quantum, the Court declined to enhance the compensation while refusing to interfere with the relief already granted.
Taking note of the State’s undertaking before the Court to deposit the compensation amount, the Bench directed payment of ₹5.25 lakh within one week. To ensure strict compliance, the Court made the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra personally responsible for depositing the amount. The respondent was granted liberty to withdraw the compensation after due verification.
The judgment serves as a strong reminder that the State is expected to act as a model litigant and cannot seek to justify illegal administrative action by producing evidence that ought to have been placed before the Court at the appropriate stage. The High Court reaffirmed that arbitrary demolition of private property without legal authority is a serious abuse of governmental power, and compensation remains an effective constitutional remedy for such unlawful actions. The decision also underscores that appellate jurisdiction cannot be used to cure procedural lapses or shield public officials from accountability after an adverse judicial finding.