Biraj Manjhi and Others vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

Aparesh Kumar Singh

Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners'' claim for compensation in lieu of lands said to be in their name, has been refused by the order of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Subarnarekha Project, Chandil.

According to the petitioners, a dispute arose between the co-sharers over the land inherited from their ancestors in Khata No. 289 of Mouza Hebon, Thana no. 97, Revenue Thana Chandil, P.S. Nimdih, which included a number of plots, which was indicated at para 4 of the writ application. A partition suit in respect of the same was preferred by ancestors themselves being Partition Suit no. 143 of 1987 for claim of 1/4 share in the suit property. A final decree was prepared after the suit was decreed, according to the petitioners, after appointment of Pleader Commissioner and was allotted to the plaintiffs on the basis of a detailed allotment chart, which is annexed as Annexure-2. According to the petitioners, pursuant to the execution proceeding, delivery of possession was given to their ancestors vide Annexure-3. These petitioners'' claim to have possessed the land in question without disturbance from any corner whatsoever. However, the land acquisition proceeding in Subarnarekha Project, Chandil were initiated and without any notice to the petitioners, their land have been acquired for the said purpose while notices were issued in the name of the defendants of the said suit. The petitioners objected to the same immediately vide representation dated 6th August, 2003 (Annexure-4) and furnished the copies of the decree of the civil court whereafter they were asked to be present along with the documents vide communication dated 19.3.2004 by Special Land Acquisition officer. However, despite deposit of the documents on their behalf, the Special Land Acquisition Officer disbursed the entire payments to the third party who were not entitled to receive the same. The petitioners alleged that notice u/s 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was also not issued in the name of the petitioners.

The respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit stating that the petitioners had failed to produce documents of their ownership of the land before the Special Land Acquisition Officer and as such, their claim for compensation could not have been accepted on the basis of the acquisition of land in question and the same has also been paid to the land losers. It is also submitted that notice was issued u/s 9 to interested persons to appear personally or through their agent. As per section 11 of the Act of 1894, after spot inquiry compensation was fixed and award was also made on 26.7.2003. The entire procedures have been followed as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is alleged that these petitioners have not filed their claim or objection even after the publication of preliminary notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which was published on 24th January, 2001 in respect of the property in question. Therefore, they cannot make objection to the same by way of the present writ application. A notice u/s 9 of the Act was also issued on 28th September, 2001 with respect to the landed property in question. In these circumstances, it is stated that the claim of the petitioners was rejected and compensation amount, on verification and examination of the claims made under the Land Acquisition Proceedings, was given to the land losers. These petitioners have claimed compensation only on 6th August, 2003 in the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Subarnarekha Project, Chandil and on receiving such claim, notices were issued to them to submit the relevant revenue records and evidence in respect of their claim. Thereafter on 7th May, 2004 (Annexure-C), a speaking order rejecting their claim has been passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Subarnarekha Project, Chandil, as they had failed to produce any relevant document in respect of their claim. Based upon these averments, the respondents have rightly refused the claim of the petitioners as being based upon no evidence

No rejoinder to the said affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners.

The facts as narrated hereinabove indicated that these petitioners have made claim in respect of some land acquired in respect of the Subarnarekha Project, Chandil and thereafter a reasoned order has been passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer which also is not under challenge in the present writ application. Even otherwise, the petitioners, if they are aggrieved, were required to invoke the remedy before the Appropriate Authority under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, if permissible in law and within the time stipulated thereunder. In the present case, however, this court in the wake of disputed facts is not inclined to entertain this writ application in exercise of its extra ordinary discretionary jurisdiction. The petitioners may however, pursue any other remedy, if available to them under law for adjudication of their claim. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.