Kiran Bala Jha @ K.B. Jha And Ors vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

I.A. No. 641 of 2019

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted at the outset that appropriate order may be passed in the Interlocutory application being I.A. No. 641 of 2019, which has been filed for deletion of the name of the petitioner no. 2 from the cause title, since he has died during pendency of the writ petition and therefore, submission has been made that the writ petition may be confined to the petitioner no. 1 only.

Learned counsel for the Respondent-State has not raised any objection with respect to the contention and prayer made and sought for in the interlocutory application.

In view thereof and considering the reasons assigned in the interlocutory application, the same is being allowed confining the writ petition only with respect to the petitioner no. 1.

Accordingly, Interlocutory application being I.A. No. 641 of 2019 is allowed and disposed of.

W.P. (C) No. 842 of 2018

This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking a direction upon the respondents to make payment of compensation at the rate of revised valuation of Rs.20,35,209.09/- with interest over the land and demolished pucca house constructed over the part of the plot no. 01, J.B. No. 05, area 16 decimals under Mouza Domamarni (Katiya) within the district of Deoghar.

It is the case of the petitioners that for the purpose of extension of Deoghar Airport, the land which belongs to the petitioners has been acquired, but without any requisition and compensation and therefore, the instant writ petition.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that the land originally belonged to one Mazid Khan, who happens to be the Raiyat of the area, which is under the provisions of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act and he has also given declaration that if the amount of compensation would be paid in favour of the petitioners, he will have no objection and placing reliance upon the declaration, given by the said Raiyat, namely, Mazid Khan, the claim has been tried to be substantiated by the petitioners.

Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State-Respondent, wherein, the specific plea has been taken that the petitioners have failed to substantiate their title over the land in question and whatever documents, they are putting reliance upon, even if the same would be accepted, the petitioners cannot be said to have any title over the land in question in view of the specific bar mandated under the provision of Section 20 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act and therefore, the petitioners are having no claim of taking the amount of compensation in absence of title over the land in question.

This Court after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and considering the submissions advanced on their behalf, is of the view that the amount of compensation, if for acquisition under the provisions of the Acquisition Act is to be paid to the title holder of the land, who on the date of notification, issued under the applicable Acquisition Act is found to be the rightful title holder.

Here, in the instant case, the land is in the district of Deoghar, which is to be governed under the provision of Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, wherein the provision has been enacted as Section 20, which restrains transfer and no sale of the land of the Raiyat, falling within the area, which is being governed under the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act.

The location of the land is not in dispute as also the land belongs to the Raiyat, namely, Mazid Khan and the said land, since falling under the purview of the provision of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, therefore, the provision of Section 20 will be applicable, which mandates for non-transfer and no sale of the land falling under that area, therefore, the land being not transferable and non-salable, the petitioners, who are claiming the title on the basis of declaration made in this regard by the original Raiyat, are having no legal force, in view of the provision of Section 20 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949 and therefore, the ground, as has been raised by the State-Respondent in the counter affidavit, cannot be said to be unjust and unjustified.

In view thereof and in the conserved view of this Court, the petitioners have failed to make out a case for passing a positive direction in their favour for getting the amount of compensation.

Accordingly, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. Before parting with the order, it needs to refer herein, that the dismissal of the writ petition, in any way does not waive the right to get the compensation by the Raiyat, if the Raiyat will approach the competent authority will decide the claim in accordance with law.