Prabodh Kumar Dey vs State of Jharkhand And Ors

The present writ petition is taken up today through Video conferencing.

The instant writ petition has been filed for:

(i) A direction upon the concerned respondents especially the respondent no. 2 - the Deputy Commissioner-cum- Collector, Jamtara to immediately and forthwith release the compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 12,01,844/- which has been awarded in favour of the petitioner by the respondent no. 2 vide letter dated 18.06.2018 passed in L.A. Case No. 01/2017-18 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) with respect to the building/structure erected over the land bearing Khata No. 145, Plot No. 2645, measuring an area of 4.45 decimals of Mouza- Sahardal, Mihijam, District-Jamtara;

(ii) A further writ/order/direction upon the concerned respondents to show cause under what authority the respondents till date has not released the legally payable compensation amount to the petitioner who comes under the definition of affected family as defined under Section 3(c) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 2013").

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land has been acquired for construction of Rail Overbridge No. 242/25-57 in LC Gate No. 7-A/T between Chitranjan and Bodma Railway Station situated at Jama-Jamtara-Rupnarayanpur Road. It is further submitted that Anil Kumar Nandi (the respondent no. 4) - the grandson of the recorded raiyat namely, Hari Nandi executed a "Deed of Relinquishment" in favour of the petitioner on 30.09.2009 thereby extinguishing all his rights in the said property. The petitioner was awarded compensation amount of Rs. 12,01,844/- vide letter dated 18.06.2018 issued by the respondent no. 3 - the District Land Acquisition Officer, Jamtara in L.A. Case No. 01/2017-18 with respect to the building/structure which existed over the land bearing Khata No. 145, Plot No. 2645/51, Mouza- Sahardal, measuring an area of 4.45 decimals, Circle-Mihijam, District- Jamtara. The said award was prepared after due verification and survey of the said land and building by the respondent no. 3 as well as the respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 3 also issued a letter dated 18.06.2018 to the respondent no. 4 considering him as land owner and awarded a compensation amount of Rs. 4,12,473.60/-. On receipt of letter dated 18.06.2018 issued by the respondent no. 3, the petitioner immediately responded to the same vide letter dated 11.06.2019 requesting that he was the sole claimant of the compensation amount relating to the residential building and Anil Kumar Nandi (the respondent no. 4 herein) was wrongly claiming compensation over the said building. Though compensation amount has also been awarded in favour of the respondent no. 4 to the tune of Rs. 4,12,473.60/- for the land, but compensation amount with regard to the said building/structure is being wrongly claimed by the respondent no. 4, who had already relinquished his right over the said land by issuing a "Deed of Relinquishment" in favour of the petitioner and as such, he is not entitled for any compensation amount with regard to the building/structure in question. Thereafter, the respondent no. 3 issued a letter dated 09.11.2019 to the petitioner stating inter alia that the respondent no. 4 had filed an objection with respect to payment of compensation to be made to the petitioner. The respondent no. 3, vide said letter also directed the petitioner to mutually settle the dispute with the respondent no. 4 and to get the compensation amount by 11.11.2019, failing which the building/structure would be demolished. Thereafter, the petitioner again made an application on 11.11.2019 before the respondent no. 2 requesting inter alia to release compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 12,01,844/- in his favour prior to demolition of the said building/structure in which he had been in continuous possession. The petitioner further stated in the said letter that he was not claiming any compensation with regard to the land in question, but only to the extent of his residential building. Despite the said request of the petitioner made to the respondent no. 2, the said building/structure got demolished without paying a single penny to the petitioner. Due to the demolition of the said building/structure, the petitioner and his family members are facing great difficulty. It is further submitted that as per Section 27 and Section 31 of the Act, 2013, both the land owner as well as the affected families are entitled for compensation. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on instruction, submits that so far as the building/structure which existed over the said land is concerned, the respondent authorities are also intending to pay compensation for the same to the respondent no. 4.

Be that as it may. The case of the petitioner is that the award with respect to the building/structure which existed over the said land, has been prepared in his favour and has also received notice under Section 37(2) of the Act, 2013. Thus, without entering into the respective claim of the petitioner and the respondent no. 4, the petitioner is given liberty to prefer a fresh application before the respondent no. 3. On receipt of the said application, the respondent no. 3 after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondent no. 4, shall take an appropriate decision in terms with the relevant provisions of the Act, 2013 within a period of 30 days from the date of filing of the said application by the petitioner.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid liberty and direction.

Till the said decision is taken by the respondent no. 3, the compensation amount for the building/structure in question shall not be released in favour of any one.