Jharkhand High Court
Chitranjan Tiwary vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 March, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
1 W.P. (C) No.3119 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 3119 of 2019
1. Chitranjan Tiwary, aged about 63 years, son of late Ram Ratan
Tewary, resident of Village-Kotaldih, Rantand, P.O.-
Brahamndih, P.S.-Topchanchi, Dist.-Dhanbad
2. Maga Ram Tiwary, aged about 23 years, son of late Ram Ratan
Tiwary, resident of Village-Kotaldih, Rantand, P.O.-
Brahamndih, P.S.-Topchanchi, Dist.-Dhanbad
3. Nirmala Devi, aged about 41 years, w/o Kanhai Lal Upadhyay,
resident of Village-Kotaldih, Rantand, P.O.-Brahamndih, P.S.-
Topchanchi, Dist.-Dhanbad
4. Sishu Bala Devi, aged about 70 years, w/o Rajendra Tewari,
resident of Village & P.O.-Purnadih, P.S.-Tundi, Dist.-Dhanbad
.... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S.-
Dhanbad, Dist.-Dhanbad
3. Maithan Power Ltd. having its office at Dombhui, P.O. & P.S.-
Nirsa, Dist.-Dhanbad, represented by the Chief Executive Officer
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Maithan Power Ltd. having its
office at Dombhui, P.O. & P.S.-Nirsa, Dist.-Dhanbad,
5. Damodar Valley Corporation, having its office at DVC Tower,
V.I.P., Road, Kolkata, P.O. & P.S.-Kolkata, Dist.-Kolkata through
its Chairman
6. The Chairman, Damodar Valley Corporation, having its office at
DVC Tower, V.I.P., Road, Kolkata, P.O. & P.S.-Kolkata, Dist.-
Kolkata
7. The Director Personnel (D.P.), Damodar Valley Corporation,
having its office at DVC Tower, V.I.P., Road, Kolkata, P.O. &
P.S.-Kolkata, Dist.-Kolkata
.... Respondents
PRESENT
2 W.P. (C) No.3119 of 2019
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioners : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate : Mr. Abhishek Kr. Dubey, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate : Mr. Tanya Rai, Advocate : Mr. A.R. Kisku, AC to GA V : Mr. J.F. Toppo, GA V : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate : Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Advocate : Ms. Shruti Shekhar, Advocate : Mr. Nillohit Choubey, Advocate : Mr. Prakhar Harit, Advocate : Mr. K. Hari, Advocate .....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issue of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) particularly in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents particularly to the respondent nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 to immediately make available and pay all benefits to the petitioners by way of compensation in cash and kind which has been paid to other awardees whose land has been acquired similar to that of the petitioners and further direction upon the respondents to immediately pay interest upon the amount for causing unnecessary harassment and humiliation to the petitioners and depriving them of their valuable right of compensation in lieu of land acquired.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioners are the four out of the six legal representatives of Sureshwar Tiwary @ Sureshwari Devi whose land along with her co-sharer were acquired by the State and in respect of which L.A. No.1/2001-02 was instituted and compensation was paid to the persons whose land was 3 W.P. (C) No.3119 of 2019 acquired. Sureshwar Tiwary @ Sureshwari Devi died after passing of the order for payment of compensation in L.A. No. 1/2001-02.
She did not receive the compensation amount though she was alive at the time of the said compensation was offered to her. Subsequently, land reference case was made; consequent upon the request for enhancement of the compensation. The compensation was ordered to be paid to the eldest progeny of Sureshwar Tiwary @ Sureshwari Devi namely Shisubala Devi. The petitioners earlier moved before this Court in W.P. (C) No.4865 of 2013 seeking direction upon the District Land Acquisition Officer to issue separate cheques to all the awardees who are the six descendants of Sureshwar Tiwary @ Sureshwari Devi and vide order dated 08.04.2015 a coordinate Bench of this Court directed that if an application is filed within two weeks; upon filing such application, the Land Acquisition Officer would prepare separate cheque in the name of all the six awardees, if permissible in law and the petitioners filed representation before the District Land Acquisition Officer and separate cheques were issued to the tune of Rs.888.33 respectively to each of the petitioners.
4. On the basis of the status of the petitioners as awardees of the acquired land, they submitted separate representation with a prayer to grant benefits which have been granted to other awardees for acquisition of land in whose names cheque has been issued by the District Land Acquisition Officer.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the petitioners have been paid cheque of Rs.888.83 but benefit of 4 W.P. (C) No.3119 of 2019 awardees of Rs.92,000/- as compensation plus Rs.2,500/- per month for a period of two years and an employment in lieu of the land which has been given to other and/or in alternative if employment is not given, Rs.5,00,000/- has to be paid to the petitioners has not been paid to them but nowhere it has been mentioned on what basis such a claim is made by the petitioner. Relying upon the paragraph no.14 and 20 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent nos.3 and 4 in this writ petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is admitted by the respondent nos.3 and 4 that Sureshwar Tiwary @ Sureshwari Devi during her lifetime neither took employment under contract labour nor took Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation from the Maithon Power Limited and as per Rehabilitation & Resettlement policy, the copy of which has not been brought on record, by either the petitioners or any of the respondents of this case, the benefits is to be extended only against the original awardees i.e. in the present case against late Sureshwar Tiwary @ Sureshwari Devi. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there cannot be a distinction between the original awardee and awardee and this is an innovation made by the respondent nos.3 and 4 to deny the legitimate due of the petitioners. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that annexure-4 contains the name of the four writ petitioners and as such they are the awardees. Hence, it is submitted that respondents be directed to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- each to the petitioners with interest thereon.
5 W.P. (C) No.3119 of 2019
6. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 submits that since the respondent nos.3 and 4 is not a State within a meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India nor the respondent-Maithon Power Limited is discharging any public function rather it is engaged in generation of electricity hence no writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be issued against it. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 that this writ petition is otherwise also not maintainable seeking enforcement of an internal Rehabilitation and Resettlement policy which has been prepared by respondent- Maithan Power Limited by virtue of the instant writ petition but it is fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 and 4 that Maithan Power Limited is willing to extend the benefit of Rs.5,00,000/- which is to be proportionately divided among all the six legal heirs of late Sureshwar Tiwary @ Sureshwari Devi. It is then submitted that in the present case all the legal heirs are claiming separate compensation which is not permissible in law. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 and 4 that at the time of passing of the award under L.A. No.1/2001-02 since Sureshwar Tiwary @ Sureshwari Devi was alive and she did not turn up for receiving any compensation, employment or Rs.5,00,000/- in lieu of the employment, hence, she is not entitled to any interest upon the amount; when there is no provision of payment of any interest in Rehabilitation & Resettlement policy.
6 W.P. (C) No.3119 of 2019
7. Learned counsel for rest of the respondents adopts the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 and 4.
8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, the sole question to be answered in this writ petition is :-
"Whether the petitioners are entitled to Rs.5,00,000/- each and interest or they are together being the legal representatives of the deceased Sureshwar Tiwary @ Sureshwari Devi to be specific six in total together are jointly entitled to ₹ 5 lakhs?"
9. Now coming to the facts of the case, as already indicated above, the Rehabilitation and Resettlement policy concerned has not been brought on record, by any of the parties to the writ petition. The claim of the petitioners is based solely on the averments made by the respondent nos.3 and 4, in the counter affidavit filed in this writ petition. The respondent nos.3 and 4 has in no uncertain manner averred in paragraph no.20 of their counter affidavit that only the original awardee i.e. in the present case late Sureshwar Tiwary @ Sureshwari Devi is entitled to receive Rs.5,00,000/-. In this backdrop, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioners that all the legal representatives of the deceased Sureshwar Tiwary @ Sureshwari Devi are entitled to receive Rs.5,00,000/- each because that will lead to an anomalous situation as on the date of passing of the award in L.A. Case No.1 of 2001-02 undisputedly, Sureshwar Tiwary @ Sureshwari Devi was alive like other co-sharers. Now other co-sharers have got Rs.5,00,000/- each. Only because Sureshwar Tiwary @ Sureshwari 7 W.P. (C) No.3119 of 2019 Devi did not receive Rs.5,00,000/- or the compensation certainly, that will not make her legal heirs any amount more than to which Sureshwar Tiwary @ Sureshwari Devi was entitled to hence, in view of the only material available in the record regarding the entitlement of the petitioners to get ₹ 5 lakhs; being the admission in paragraph no.20 of the counter affidavit by the respondent nos.3 and 4 that the benefit of Rehabilitation & Resettlement policy is to be extended only to original awardee, this Court is of the considered view that only Sureshwar Tiwary @ Sureshwari Devi is entitled to Rs.5,00,000/- besides the compensation and she having undisputedly not received Rs.5,00,000/-, the same can be equally distributed amongst all the six legal heirs of her whose names has been mentioned in paragraph no.15 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 including the four writ petitioners.
10. So far as the claim of interest is concerned, it is crystal clear that Sureshwar Tiwary @ Sureshwari Devi though was alive at the time of passing of the compensation order in L.A. Case No.1/2001-02 and never approached any time to the respondents for receiving either the compensation, employment or Rs.5,00,000/-in lieu of the employment, hence, in the considered opinion of this Court as she never received the same in time, there is no justifiable reason to award interest to the petitioner, when there is no fault on the part of the respondents; more so when there is no material in the record to suggest that there is any 8 W.P. (C) No.3119 of 2019 provision of awarding of any interest on the amount to be paid in Rehabilitation & Resettlement policy concerned.
11. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 and 4 regarding maintainability of the writ petition is concerned, since respondent nos.3 and 4 has given in writing that it is willing to extend the benefit of Rs.5,00,000/- which is to be proportionately divided among all the legal heirs as mentioned in paragraph no.22 of the counter affidavit, this Court is not entering into the contention of maintainability of the writ petition and is not passing any order regarding the said contention of the respondent nos.3 and 4 that the writ petition is not maintainable; on merit.
12. In view of the discussions made above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent nos.3 and 4 to pay Rs.83,333/- to each of the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this Judgment.
13. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 19th March, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-