Majhia Murmu vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 17 April, 2017

[Cites 1, Cited by 14]

Jharkhand High Court

Majhia Murmu vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 17 April, 2017

Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     W.P.(C) No. 2281 of 2016
Majhia Murmu                                             ....... Petitioner
                          Vrs.
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner,Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum
3. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum
4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Dalbhum, East Singhbhum
5. Circle Officer, Jamshedpur
6. Uranium Corporation of India Limited through the General Manager
   (P) Jadugoda Mines, East Singhbhum                    ....Respondents
                          .......
CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
For the Petitioner        : Mr. Amit Kumar Verma
For the Respondents       : Mr. M.B.Lal (for Respondent no. 6)
                          : Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, J.C to S.C.(L&C)

04/17.04.2017

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, Respondent State and Uranium Corporation of India Limited(UCIL).

2. Petitioner got conveyance of the immovable property described in sale deed dated 4.6.2003 from the vendor Taranisen Nayek and other being Plot No. 28, Khata no. 13, Thana no. 1181, Mouza Turamdih, Circle Parsudih comprising an area of 7.5 decimals of land. Mutation was allowed in his favour which on being challenged by the Respondent- UCIL in Mutation Appeal No. 67 of 09-10 was set aside vide order dated 31.3.2011. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum upheld the Appellate Order in Mutation Revision Case No. 36/2011-12 vide order dated 10.12.2015. Both these orders are impugned by the writ petitioner. As per the admission of the petitioner, land in question stood acquired in favour of the Respondent- UCIL in a proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 and compensation of Rs. 7,223/- was also paid. Acquisition proceedings have become final and the Respondent- UCIL is in possession of the acquired land and those of the adjoining areas covered under the acquisition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the garb of the orders of the Revenue Authorities, claim for rehabilitation under the rehabilitation and resettlement policy followed by the Respondent- UCIL would be declined.

4. Learned counsel for the Respondent-UCIL submits that there are no averments to that effect, neither are any decision of the UCIL to that effect brought on record to substantiate the aforesaid apprehension. It is -2- also submitted that if the petitioner falls under the category of land loser and has got compensation in lieu of the land acquired and if the R&R policy permits rehabilitation to such oustee, the order passed by the Revenue Authorities would make no difference to the claim of the petitioner. Fact of the matter is that the outcome of the exercise assailing the orders of mutation passed in favour of the Respondent- UCIL would be of no meaning to the petitioner.

5. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for UCIL, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the question raised here would be academic. However petitioner may be granted liberty to approach the Respondent UCIL for rehabilitation under the R&R scheme applicable.

6. It would be open for the petitioner to stake such claim if permissible under the R&R policy. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A.Mohanty

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court