Dhiren Chandra Pandey vs M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, District-Dhanbad

Mr. Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking compensation for acquisition of 3.89 acres of land of Mouza-Jogradh and Mouza-Junkuder apart from seeking employment under Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy applicable under Respondent-BCCL. Petitioner contends that 3.89 acres of raiyati land which includes Plot nos. 149, 160, 162/163, 251, 252, 253, 254, 270, 271, 272, 273, 286, 287, 289, 290 of Khata no. 27, Mouza-Jogradh and Plot no. 589 of Khata no. 45 of Mouza-Junkuder were claimed by Respondent-BCCL. No compensation amount has been paid by the State or Respondent-BCCL. Out of 3.89 acres of land, 1.48 acres comprising of Plot nos. 149 and 162 of Mouza-Jogradh and Plot no. 508 of Mouza-Junkuder have been acquired through L.A Case No. 40/1981-82. Petitioner has not received any notice for payment of compensation under Section 12(2) of Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the proceedings are illegal and void. No compensation has been received by the petitioner. Delivery of possession has also to be carried out through valid documents. Petitioner after making representation before the General Manage C.V.Area BCCL and Senior Estate Officer, C.V. Area, has approached this Court for the instant relief.

According to the Respondent-BCCL, lands acquired under Land Acquisition Act of 1894 are described at Para-5 of the counter affidavit being Plot no. 149 P having an area of 1.37 acres in L. A Case No. 40/1981-82; Plot no. 162 having an area of 0.01 acre acquired in the same L.A Case and Plot no. 598 having an area of 0.10 acres acquired in L.A Case No. 82 of 1981-82. The total area acquired is 1.48 acres. It is their case that through registered Sale Deed no. 16356 of 1950 1.60 acres of land was purchased by the Ex-colliery owner of Junkundar Colliery through D.D. Mandal. Details of Plot numbers thereof, totalling an area of 1.60 acres are indicated at Para-5 (b) of the counter affidavit. At para-5(c), it is stated that B.C.C.L has neither taken any possession nor undertaken mining in respect of Plot nos. 163, 286, 287 and 288 having total area of 0.818 acres. Therefore, the assertion of the petitioner to the contrary is incorrect.

Counsel for the Respondent-BCCL submits that as regards the land acquired, petitioner may approach the District Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad for payment of compensation amount, which has already been deposited in the year 1982 itself. Since the respondents have not acquired more than 2 acres of land, they are not liable to provide one employment. The case of the petitioner is therefore not attracted by the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy.

Counsel for the Respondent-State on the basis of counter affidavit sworn by District Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad, has stated that 9.68 acres of land in various Plot numbers of Khata no. 27 of Mouza-Junkundar was acquired for the purpose of M/s. BCCL. Notification was published on 24th June, 1981 in the District Gazette in view of the letter dated 24th June 1981 received for acquisition. After approval of the Government through letter dated 8th September, 1981 notification for acquisition of 9.69 acres of land was issued and possession thereof was delivered to the beneficiary organisation on 20th October, 1981. Notice was issued to the affected raiyats and only one objection was received which was disposed of in terms of Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act. Rates of the land have been assessed under the provisions of the Act vide order dated 11th may, 1982 and total compensation of land was assessed for Rs. 36,057.60. An area of 3.03 acres of land under various Plots no. 149, 162, 160 and 149 recorded in Khata no. 27 was found recorded in the name of Shankar Pandey and others, who were awarded a sum of Rs. 2,093.00. It is further stated that M/s. BCCL had put objection and hence the aforesaid payment could not be made to the land-looser. The amount of compensation has been deposited in the Treasury. Further 2.33 acres of land was declared by Award no. 2, where under Rs. 6,996.70 was to be given to the aforesaid persons but on objection of M/s. BCCL, it was deposited in the Treasury. M/s. BCCL had filed a petition under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against Shankar Pandey and others and the same was also referred to Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad vide letter dated 29th January, 1990. It is further stated that the said case was not recorded in the Court.

Counsel for the Respondent-State submits that matter regarding employment of land-loosers and payment of compensation was objected by M/s. BCCL, therefore no payment could be made to the land-loose rs by the respondents.

I have considered submission of the parties in the light of the relevant pleadings and documents on record noticed here in above. As per case of M/s. BCCL, land comprising 1.48 acres under Plot nos. 149P, 162 and 598 have been acquired in L.A Case no. 40/1981-82 and L. A. Case no. 82/1981-82. They have disputed claim of the petitioner in respect of plot nos. 160, 251, 252, 253, 254, 270, 271, 272, 273 and 290 comprising 1.60 acres, said to have purchased by Ex-colliery owner of Junkundar colliery through D.D Mandal. Respondents have also disputed the assertion of petitioner regarding taking over of possession by M/s. BCCL of 0. 81 acres of land under Plot nos. 163, 286, 287 and 288. It is therefore evident that on admitted facts an area of 1.48 acres acquired through L.A Case No. 40/1981-82 and L. A. Case no. 82/1981-82 are within the possession of M/s. BCCL, in respect of which compensation amount was deposited in the year 1982 itself. The claim of petitioner however ranges over several plots measuring 3.89 acres of land of Mouza-Jograd, Junkundaer, which are not admitted on record by the respondents. In that situation, in the exercise of writ jurisdiction of the court, the only direction that can be issued is to allow the petitioner to approach the concerned District Land Acquisition Officer for release of compensation upon proper identification and establishment of their claim over the plots of land acquired in the said proceedings. In respect of other pieces of land to which there are objections, this Court is not in a position to determine the claim of the petitioner. The land Acquisition Act, 1984 provides for a remedy thereunder being a complete code in itself. The other land-loosers, if any, are also not impleaded as respondents in the present writ petition who may have an objection regarding the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the competent authority/respondent no. 8, District Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad for payment of compensation, if any, due to him in terms of Land Acquisition Act under L.A Case No. 40/1981-82 and L.A. Case No. 82/1981-82, of course, after due identification of the petitioner and the proof of ownership of plots of land involved in the said acquisition proceedings. Needless to say, on such appearance the competent authority/respondent no. 8 would consider the same in accordance with law and as per the observations made here in above within a reasonable time.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.