Badri Modi vs State of Jharkhand

Heard Mr. Amit Sinha, counsel assisted by Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, counsel appearing for the petitioners.Â

Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, counsel appearing for the respondent-State.

Heard Mr. Somitra Baroi, counsel appearing for the respondent- Damodar Valley Corporation.Â

At the outset, counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to add the “Principal Secretary, Revenue, Registration & Land Reforms, Govt. of

Jharkhand, Ranchiâ€​ as a party respondent  no. 5 in this case.Â

Accordingly, counsel for the petitioners is permitted to add Principal Secretary, Revenue, Registration & Land Reforms, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi

as party respondent no. 5 in causetitle in red ink during the course of the day.Â

This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

(a) “For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s) and/ or direction(s) calling upon the respondents to issue rent receipts to the petitioners in

relation to the land appertaining to Plot No. 347, Area 5 acres of Khata No. 1, Thana No. 46 of Jai Nagar Circle, Koderma, at Mouza Kherobar, out

of 39.50 acres.

(b) For issuance of further writ/order/direction that the petitioners whose name is running in Jamabandi No. 134/ 1 cannot be interfered with by the

respondents due to pendency of Miscellaneous (Raiyati Manyata Case No. 16/2006-07), now pending in the Court of Additional Collector, Koderma.

(c) For issuance of further writ/ order/ direction to respondent no. 4 to prepare and pay compensation to the petitioner, when the respondent Damodar

Valley Corporation purport to take possession of the lands pursuant to and in absence of any land without any notification under the LandÂ

Acquisition Act.Â

(d) For issuance of further writ/ order/ direction restraining the respondents from acting pursuant to and in interfering with the right and possession of

the petitioner over the land in question.†7. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the property involved in this case was a part of raiyati settlement

made in favour of the petitioners vide Settlement Case No. 3 of 1967-68. Thereafter, the name of the petitioners was entered into in Register- II of

the record of rights and the petitioners have been in possession of the property and have been paying rent right from the year, 1968. The details of the

rent receipt has been mentioned in paragraph no. 9 of the writ petition.Â

Counsel for the petitioners further submits that this property has been acquired for the purposes of Damodar Valley Corporation and Damodar

Valley Corporation has taken possession of this property and in the meantime, the Raiyati Manyata Case No. 16 of 2006-07 was instituted and the

respondent â€" State stopped issuing rent receipts to the petitioners. He submits that irrespective of the fact whether the rent receipts are issued or

not, a Circular has been issued by the State Government as contained in Memo No. 334 dated 14.05.2009 being Annexure-3 filed alongwith the

supplementary-affidavit of the petitioner dated 19.05.2012, wherein a decision has been taken that the persons who are in possession of the property

for more than 30 years will be entitled to compensation in connection with the land acquired for Damodar Valley Corporation.Â

The counsel for the petitioners further submits that as the settlement was made in the year 1967-68 and his possession stands confirmed by

issuance of the rent receipts, there is no dispute that the petitioners were in possession of the property for the last more than 30 years. He further

submits that a letter No. 398 dated 15.07.2008 was also issued by the Deputy Commissioner after due enquiry to the Principal Secretary, Revenue,

Registration & Land Reforms Department, State of Jharkhand and a chart was annexed alongwith the said letter in which the name of the

petitioners with description of the property finds its place at serial no. 99 wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the petitioners are in possession of

the property for 33 years.Â

Counsel for the petitioners also submits that in view of the Circular issued by the State Government read with the report of the Deputy

Commissioner, there cannot be any dispute that the petitioners are entitled for the compensation and accordingly, a direction may be issued to the

respondents for payment of compensation irrespective of issuance of further rent receipt to the petitioners.Â

Counsel appearing for the Damodar Valley Corporation submits that there is no dispute that possession of this property has been taken by

Damodar Valley Corporation, but the occasion to pay compensation will arise only when the competent authority of the State Government will

forward the necessary details to Damodar Valley Corporation. He further submits that the moment Damodar Valley Corporation receives the details

containing the names of the petitioners for the purposes of making payment of compensation, the same will be released to the petitioners within a

period of 30 days from the date of receipt of such communication.Â

Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State submits that the report of the Deputy Commissioner has to be ultimately considered by the

respondent- State and upon such consideration the necessary communication will be issued by the respondent no. 2 â€" Additional Collector,

Koderma.Â

Counsel for the respondent- State further submits that the order as contained in letter No. 398 dated 15.07.2008 issued by the Deputy

Commissioner is addressed to Principal Secretary, Revenue, Registration & Land Reforms Department, State of Jharkhand wherein it has been

mentioned that on the basis of his recommendation, the State Government has to take a decision in the matter of payment of compensation. He further

submits that in view of this, the final decision has to be taken by the State Government considering the recommendation of the Deputy

Commissioner.Â

After hearing the counsel for the parties and after considering the materials on record, this Court finds that from the report of the Deputy

Commissioner contained in letter No. 398 dated 15.07.2008, it appears that the Deputy Commissioner has sent his report to the State and it has also

been mentioned in that recommendation that the petitioners are in possession of the property of 5 acres of land for the last 33 years. There is a

recommendation for payment of compensation to the petitioners, but, it appears that the State Government has not yet taken a final decision in the

matter of payment of compensation to the petitioners and therefore, no instruction has been issued to the Additional Collector, Koderma for payment

of compensation and consequently, Damodar Valley Corporation has also not received any instructions in this connection.Â

Considering the fact that a communication in connection with the matter of compensation has already been issued by the Deputy Commissioner to

the Principal Secretary, Revenue, Registration & Land Reforms Department, State of Jharkhand, this Court directs the Principal Secretary, Revenue,

Registration & Land Reforms Department, State of Jharkhand to ensure that a final decision in the matter of payment of compensation should be

taken in the light of the facts and circumstances of this case, so that the matter regarding compensation payable to the various persons including that

of the petitioners is finally decided and if they are entitled the same be paid to them.Â

This Court further directs that the final decision in this connection should be taken within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy

of this order. In case ultimately, it is decided by the State that the payment of compensation is to be made to the petitioners, then the necessary

communication be issued through the competent authority to the Damodar Valley Corporation so that the compensation may be released to the entitled

persons by the Damodar Valley Corporation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such communication.Â

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.  Â

    Â