Md. Salim vs State Of Jharkhand

Rajesh Shankar, J

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondents to forthwith declare the petitioner as “displaced” person and to issue “Displaced Family Development Booklet”-Vikas Pustika in terms with the Rehabilitation Policy, 2003 read with Revised Rehabilitation Policy, 2012 formulated by the Department of Water Resources, Government of Jharkhand with respect to the ‘displaced’ families due to land acquisition for implementation of irrigation project scheme.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the house and land of the petitioner situated at Mouza-Chitarpur, Khata No.91, Plot No.467 were acquired by the State Government vide Land Acquisition Case No.10 of 2001-02 for the construction of “Bhairwa Reservoir” and compensation of Rs.1,45,504/- was paid to his father. Thereafter, the State Government framed Rehabilitation Policy, 2003 subsequently, modified by Revised Rehabilitation Policy, 2012.

It is further submitted that the petitioner comes under the definition of ‘displaced’ as defined under Clause 3.1 of Revised Rehabilitation Policy, 2012 since he had been residing over the acquired land for several years prior to the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and as per the said Clause 3.1, the qualifying period for residing over the acquired land to be considered under the category of ‘displaced’ is at least one year prior to the date of issuance of the said notification. Moreover, Clause 3.1 (क) also puts a condition that those persons would be considered as ‘displaced’ whose houses were situated within the submergence area or out of the submergence area of the acquired land. Since the house and land of the petitioner have already been acquired as would be evident from Annexure-1 to the present writ petition, he is entitled to be extended the benefits under rehabilitation policy including the issuance of “Vikas Pustika” irrespective of the fact that the said house and land acquired by the Government did not fall within submergence area.

It is further submitted that the said issue has already been decided by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 23rd January, 2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.758 of 2019 (Gopal Patar @ Gopal Chandra Patar & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.). Further, the petitioner also fulfils the other requirements for issuance of “Vikas Pustika”. Hence, the respondent authorities may be directed to issue the same to him irrespective of the fact that the house and land acquired by the Government were situated outside the submergence area.

Ms. Sweta Shukla, learned A.C. to A.A.G.-II, appearing on behalf of the respondents refers the counter affidavit dated 5th December, 2023 filed on behalf of the respondent nos.1, 4, 5 & 7 and submits that the petitioner does not come under the category of ‘displaced’ as defined under Clause 3.1 (क), (ख) of the Rehabilitation Policy, 2003/2012 due to the reason that he did not raise the issue with respect to his rehabilitation under the aforesaid policy earlier and has raised it for the first time after lapse of about 22 years.

On perusal of the Clause 12.1 of Revised Rehabilitation Policy, 2012, it would be evident that the same is also applicable on such irrigation projects in which the rehabilitation related works have not been completed. It has not been mentioned in the counter affidavit dated 5th December, 2023 that rehabilitation related works with respect to “Bhairwa Reservoir Project” has already been completed. Hence, any delay said to have been committed by the petitioner in claiming the rehabilitation benefits particularly for issuance  of  “Vikas Pustika” will not frustrate his claim. So far as the definition of “displaced” as mentioned in Clause 3.1 of the Revised Rehabilitation Policy, 2012 is concerned, Sub-clause (क) of the same mentions both the categories of persons whose houses either come under the submergence area or outside the submergence area of the acquired land.

Admittedly, the land and the house of the petitioner have been acquired. Hence, this Court is of the view that the petitioner comes under the definition of “displaced” as mentioned in Clause 3.1 of the Revised Rehabilitation Policy, 2012 as his house was situated outside the submergence area of the acquired land. Similar interpretation has been given in the case of Gopal Patar @ Gopal Chandra Patar (supra).

Under the said circumstance, the concerned authority i.e. respondent no.6 is directed to take up the petitioner’s claim for issuance of “Vikas Pustika” in his name and on verifying the fact as to whether he is otherwise eligible for the issuance of the same, shall dispose of the said claim by passing a reasoned order within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid direction.