Jharkhand High Court
Kumari Ratnakar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 July, 2023
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No.1882 of 2020
-----
Kumari Ratnakar .......... Petitioner.
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad.
3. The Additional Collector, Dhanbad.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad.
5. The Circle Officer, Dhanbad.
.......... Respondents.
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, A.A.G.III
For Applicants/ : Mr. Pratik Sen, Advocate
Intervenors
-----
Order No.07 Date: 20.07.2023
1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 25th February, 2020 (Annexure-15 to the writ petition) passed by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad- respondent no.4 in Misc. Case no.02 of 2019-20, whereby in pursuance of the order dated 22nd August, 2019 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.513 of 2016 the petitioner's request for payment of compensation with respect to acquisition of the land in question vide notification no.10/DLA/Dhan/ISM-66/13-530 dated 4th September, 2013 in terms with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter to be referred as' the Act, 2013') has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has the raiyati right over the land situated at Mouja Dhaiya, Mouja no.6, appertaining to Khata no.158, plot nos.4211, 4214 & 4224, , measuring an area of 08 decimals; Khata no.19, plot no.4196, measuring an area of 27 decimals; and Khata no.122, plot no.4221, measuring an area of 4 decimals. Further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the aforesaid land was acquired by the State Government vide aforesaid notification issued under the provisions of the Act, 2013 and possession of the same was also handed over to the beneficiary i.e. I.I.T. (I.S.M.), Dhanbad, yet the petitioner has not been paid any compensation. In support of the contention that effective possession of the said land is at present with -2- I.I.T. (I.S.M.), Dhanbad, learned counsel refers to paragraph no.16 of the writ petition, wherein it has been stated that the respondents took possession of the land under acquisition in L.A. Case no.01 of 2012-13 and subsequently vide letter no.104 dated 20th February, 2015 the same was handed over to I.I.T.(I.S.M.), Dhanbad and a certificate to that effect was also issued by the respondent no.4, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition.
3. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the possession of the said land was handed over to the I.I.T. (I.S.M.), Dhanbad vide aforesaid land acquisition proceeding, the petitioner being the lawful owner is entitled for appropriate compensation. The impugned order dated 25th February, 2020 passed by the respondent no.4 is illegal and unjustified and the petitioner is at least entitled for restoration of the land, as the said respondent has himself observed that the land acquisition proceeding initiated in terms with the notification issued in the year 2013 has lapsed on account of not declaring award within the stipulated period, since the said acquisition proceeding was made invoking the provision of Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act, 1894') treating the same as an urgent case of acquisition.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, stating, inter alia that after issuance of the notification and declaration dated 4th September, 2013 under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, 1894 and its subsequent corrigendum dated 13th December, 2013 making clarification of the post by issuing officer of the gazette notification/paper publication as the post of Deputy Secretary in place of the Under Secretary, no further step towards declaration of award was taken as per the said special provision of the Act, 1894. In fact, the possession of the land in question was never taken and the same remained with the petitioner as per her own admission made in paragraph no.7 of the writ petition.
5. It has also been stated that no award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 was made within the prescribed period and, therefore, the proceeding of L.A. Case no.01 of 2012-13 lapsed. Under the said circumstance, the respondent no.4 has rightly passed the impugned order dated 25th February, 2020.
-3-6. It has further been stated that the petitioner has not disclosed the fact in the writ petition that the matter of payment of compensation to various persons without preparation of the award is being investigated by the A.C.B., Dhanbad vide P.E. Case no.16 of 2015.
7. A supplementary counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondents sworn by the respondent no.4, wherein it has been stated that rejection of the petitioner's claim for compensation vide impugned order is due to the reason that the payment was illegally received by various persons without preparation of award and completion of the formalities as required under the provisions of the Act, 1894 or the Act, 2013. Due to the said irregularity/illegality, an investigation is under process by the A.C.B., Dhanbad for which a first information report being A.C.B. Dhanbad P.S. Case no.09 of 2022 has also been lodged, as would be evident from letter no.380/2023 dated 20th February, 2023 issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police-cum-Officer-in-charge, A.C.B., Dhanbad. In the said first information report, the persons who managed to receive the compensation amount have been shown as accused and the name of the petitioner has also been mentioned in the list of the interested raiyats, as contained in the written report of the informant addressed to the Superintendent of Police, A.C.B. Divisional Office, Dhanbad for holding investigation, which is still continuing.
8. An interlocutory application being I.A. No.2601 of 2023 has been filed by the applicants, namely, Rajesh Roy, Ajay Roy, Ranjit Roy, Arvind Roy, Ravi Roy, Vijay Roy and Sunil Roy seeking intervention in the present writ petition, primarily for the reason that they have already filed Title Suit no.287 of 2014 with respect to various sale deeds including the sale deeds on the basis of which the petitioner claims ownership over the land in question. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the power of attorney holder of the applicants had fraudulently sold various land including the land in question to the petitioner.
9. Be that as it may.
10. The petitioner has contended in the writ petition that though the effective possession of the land in question has been handed over to I.I.T. (I.S.M.), Dhanbad by the respondents, yet she has been denied the lawful compensation, whereas the stand of the respondents is that -4- after taking initial steps with respect to acquisition of the land of Dhaiya Mouja, District Dhanbad, no award was prepared, however, various persons managed to receive the amount of compensation. Having come to know about the said fact, a preliminary enquiry was made by the A.C.B., Dhanbad and, subsequently, an F.I.R. being A.C.B. Dhanbad P.S. Case no.09 of 2022 has also been instituted, investigation of which is presently pending.
11. Since there is a claim and counter claim with respect to handing over possession of the land in question to the I.I.T. (I.S.M.), Dhanbad vis- à-vis the petitioner's possession over the same, this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not inclined to enter into the said factual aspect, also keeping in view that the payment of compensation to various persons without effective acquisition of the concerned lands of Dhaiya Mouja, District Dhanbad in illegal and irregular manner is still under investigation by the A.C.B., Dhanbad.
12. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
13. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to take other recourse(s) as available under law for redressal of her grievance.
14. Pending I.As. are disposed of.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Sanjay/