Jharkhand High Court
Mahesh Yadav And Ors vs Revenue Department on 2 March, 2017
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (C) No. 3475 of 2016
...
1. Mahesh Yadav
2. Ranjeet Yadav
3. Krishna Kumar Yadav ... Petitioners
-V e r s u s-
1. State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Collector, Giridih
3. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Giridih
4. Ashok Kumar Kashyap
5. Tek Lal Yadav
6. Raj Hansh Rahi
7. Baijnath Yadav
8. Kailash Yadav
9. Laxmi Devi
10. Jagdish Yadav
11. Narayan Yadav
12. Sukhdeo Yadav
13. Most. Bundia
14. The Registrar General,
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Respondents
1.
with
W. P. (C) No. 3152 of 2016
...
1. Rajendra Yadav
2. Sharda Devi
3. Chotelal Yadav ... Petitioners
-V e r s u s-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Collector, Giridih
3. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Giridih
4. Mahendra Yadav
5. Meghia Devi Respondents
with
W. P. (C) No. 4849 of 2016
...
1. Rajendra Yadav
2. Sharda Devi ... Petitioners
-V e r s u s-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Collector, Giridih
3. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Giridih
4. Mahendra Yadav
5. Chotelal Devi Respondents
with
W. P. (C) No. 5759 of 2016
...
Chotan Yadav ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Collector, Giridih
3. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Giridih
4. Somar Saw
5. Kaushalya Devi
6. Sukhdeo Yadav
7. Megh Lal Yadav
8. Dular Chand
9. Kishori Yadav
10. Hemia Devi Respondents
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
...
For the Petitioners : - M/s Sumeet Gadodia & P. P. Roy, Advs.
For the Resp.-State : - Mr. Atanu Benerjee, GA
...
04/02.03.2017The grievance of the petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions is in relation to acquisition made under 'Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency' in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013'.
Petitioners have approached this Court contending that in absence of notification of the 'Authority' in terms of Section 51 of the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, they are without any remedy to file their objection to the award of compensation. During pendency of the case, the Government of Jharkhand, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms has notified the 'Authority' as reflected in communication bearing letter no. 828/A dated 24.11.2016 issued by the Secretary of the Department to all the Deputy Commissioners of Jharkhand. The Principal District Judge of five districts namely Principal Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi and Principal District Judge, Hazaribagh, Medininagar (Palamau), Dumka and West Singhbhum (Chaibasa) have been notified as the 'Authority' to exercise the power conferred under the Act of 2013.
There may be inter-se dispute between the petitioners and private respondents in these batch of writ petitions, which now are required to be referred in terms of the provisions of Section 64 of the Act to the Authority by the Collector on an application/objection made as prescribed by law.
In this aforesaid background, learned counsel for the State submits that the grievances of the petitioners have been served so far as the question of creation of 'Authority' is concerned. For any dispute relating to claim of compensation vis-a-vis orders of the Land Acquisition Authority with the private respondents, they are amenable to be raised before the notified authority.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that the writ petitions may be disposed of in that light giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the Collector under the Act for reference of their dispute before the 'Authority'. The Collector should refer the objection/application made by the aggrieved persons like the petitioners before the 'Authority' and also deposit the amount awarded before the 'Authority' being satisfied with conditions required under Section 77 of the Act of 2013. It is submitted that in one or other writ petitions, the amount has not been disbursed by virtue of the interim order passed therein. However, in some of the cases like in W.P. (C) No. 3475 of 2016, the amount awarded has been disbursed to the private respondent. Petitioners, who are aggrieved by disbursement of the amount to the private respondents, may have liberty to raise the issue before the 'Authority' concern.
Having taken into account the aforesaid conspicuous facts and submissions made, it is now apparent that the petitioners have alternative statutory remedy under the Act itself in respect of their grievance before the 'Authority' notified by the State Government. They are, therefore, at liberty to approach the authority as per the provisions of the Section 64 of the act. The Collector under the Act, in turn, after due application of mind on such objection/ application made before it refer the same to the authority for its adjudication on the dispute raised.
The Collector on being satisfied with the conditions required under Section 77 of the Act of 2013 would act accordingly in the matter of disbursement of the awarded amount or deposit it before the authority pending adjudication. Petitioners, the private respondent or any other affected parties in terms of the provision of the Act are at liberty to raise their grievances before the authority on such reference being made.
These writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Kamlesh/