Panchayat Raj Act Prevails Over Regional Development Authority Act In Rural Areas; Jharkhand High Court Quashes Demolition Orders For Lack Of Jurisdiction
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Jharkhand Single Bench of Justice Deepak Roshan held that the Ranchi Regional Development Authority cannot exercise control over building construction in areas governed by the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act and set aside the demolition and sealing orders issued against the petitioners’ properties. The Court found that the two statutes operate in direct conflict and concluded that, where such inconsistency exists, the Panchayat Raj framework necessarily prevails, resulting in the corresponding provisions of the Regional Development Authority Act losing effect to the extent of that conflict. It directed that the sealed structures be opened and clarified that construction in Panchayat-regulated areas must be overseen solely under the Panchayat Raj Act and the authorities empowered under it.
The petitions arose from actions taken by the Ranchi Regional Development Authority (RRDA) directing demolition and sealing of various structures situated in rural areas under different villages within Namkum and Khijri regions of Ranchi district. The properties included individual godowns and a multi-storied residential building. The petitioners had purchased their respective lands through registered sale deeds, mutated their names, and proceeded with construction. Some petitioners obtained permissions from Gram Panchayat representatives and secured electricity connections after construction.
RRDA initiated proceedings alleging that the constructions were carried out without approval of building plans under the Regional Development Authority Act. Orders were issued directing demolition and sealing of the structures. Appeals were filed before the Appellate Tribunal, which initially granted limited interim relief, but ultimately upheld the original orders. Petitioners challenged these decisions, asserting lack of jurisdiction of RRDA over Panchayat areas.
The petitioners argued that their constructions fell within village jurisdictions governed by the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001, and referred to permissions issued by Panchayat bodies. They relied on statutory provisions under the Panchayat Raj Act and the 2017 Rules concerning building plan approval in Panchayat areas. They also pointed to constitutional provisions under Part IX to contend that the RRDA Act could not override Panchayat authority.
RRDA contended that its jurisdiction continued by virtue of earlier notifications and inclusion of the areas within the Master Plan 2037, asserting that constructions without RRDA-approved maps were unauthorised.
The Court recorded that the core issue was “with respect to the jurisdiction of the Ranchi Regional Development Authority in respect of areas which are now governed and covered by the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act after coming into force of the same with effect from 10 May 2001.” It referred to Section 1 of the Panchayat Raj Act and observed that it “extends to the whole of the State of Jharkhand, except the areas to which the provisions of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951, the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922 or the Cantonment Act, 1924 apply,” and noted the “conspicuous absence” of any reference to the Regional Development Authority Act.
The Court stated that “the legislation governing the Panchayat system in the particular state is authorised to make provisions” regarding construction within Panchayat areas and that “the field therefore… must therefore be held to be covered and reserved for the legislation relating to panchayats.” Citing Article 243G and the Eleventh Schedule, the Court noted that rural housing includes “maintenance of records relating to building sites,” which it interpreted as requiring authorisation by Panchayat authorities.
Addressing the conflict between statutes, the Court recorded that “there cannot be any reconciliation in this respect and therefore one legislation has to make a way for the other.” It relied on principles such as lex posterior derogat priori and generalia specialibus non derogant, quoting Supreme Court authorities stating that a later special enactment prevails where provisions are repugnant. The Court observed that application of the Regional Development Authority Act to Panchayat areas “is not incidental; rather is direct and therefore must yield.”
The Court stated that permitting the RRDA Master Plan 2037 to operate in such areas “would in pith and substance authorise a legislation to operate which is deemed to have been repealed to the extent of it being inconsistent to Part IX.” It further held that after the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011, building-plan sanctioning powers in municipal areas transferred from RRDA to the Municipal Corporation, requiring “similar interpretation… to be given to the Panchayat.”
The Court concluded that after the 2001 Act came into effect, the RRDA “cannot be allowed to function with respect to an area governed and covered by the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act” and that its provisions “must be held to have been repealed to that extent.”
The Court declared that the Ranchi Regional Development Authority lacked jurisdiction to issue demolition and sealing orders in respect of buildings situated in areas governed by the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001, and therefore held that “the orders passed by the Vice Chairman, Ranchi Regional Development Authority… directing demolition and sealing of the petitioner's property is an order without jurisdiction and therefore illegal and unlawful and thus is liable to be quashed and set aside.” It further recorded that “consequently, the appellate orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal are also set aside.”
In relation to the property situated in the Panchayat area of Sidroll, the Court directed that “the respondents are directed to unseal the property… forthwith and handover the same to the petitioner or her representatives without any delay.” It reiterated that all consequential actions flowing from the RRDA’s orders must be reversed. For the property located in Barganwa, the Court issued a direction in identical terms, stating that the respondents “are directed to unseal the property… forthwith without any delay.”
With respect to the multi-storied building at Khijri, the Court held that “the order dated 15 December 2022 passed by the Vice Chairman, RRDA, Ranchi in U.C Case No. 32 of 2021 is quashed and set aside.” The Court also directed that “the order dated 07.06.2023 passed by the Appellate Tribunal in Misc. Appeal Case No. 04 of 2023 stands quashed.”
In each petition where demolition and sealing orders had been issued, the Court stated that “having regard to the fact that the authorities have acted without jurisdiction, a token cost of ₹1000 is imposed which is to be paid to the petitioner within a period of four weeks.” The Court clarified concerning claims for financial loss that “so far as compensation is concerned no order is being passed… as alleged loss has to be computed on the basis of evidence, which may involve adjudication of complex questions of facts and hence if the petitioner so advised, she may institute a civil suit seeking compensation and damages.”
The petition “stands disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to proceed in accordance with law by making proper application for the approval and sanction of the school building… before the appropriate authority.”
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate; Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate; Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate; Mr. Bhaskar Trivedi, Advocate; Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate; Mr. Karbir, Advocate
Case Title: R.S. Education Foundation Pvt. Ltd. & Ors v. State of Jharkhand & Ors
Neutral Citation: 2025: JHHC:34064
Case Number: W.P.(C) 1592/2022 & Connected Matters
Bench: Justice Deepak Roshan
