IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 853 of 2011
...
Kanti Mahanty Rohini ... ... Petitioner
V e r s u s
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
...
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR.
...
For the Petitioner : Mr. D.K. Karmakar, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. P.K. Sahay, APP.
...
02/26.04.2011
Anticipatory bail application filed by Kanti Mahanty Rohini, in
connection with Chandil P.S. Case No. 120 of 2010 corresponding to
G.R. No. 789 of 2010 pending in the court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Seraikella, is moved by Sri D.K. Karmakar, learned
counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Sri P.K. Sahay, learned
Additional P.P. for the State.
It is alleged that the land, details of which given in the first
information report, has already been acquired by the State
Government for the purpose of Subarnrekha Multipurpose Project,
but the petitioner who happens to be heir of original Raiyat conceal
this fact from subsequent purchaser Rahat Sayeed and sold those
lands by executing a sale deed dated 18.06.2007.
It is submitted by Sri Karmakar, learned counsel for the
petitioner that the compensation amount has not been paid to the
petitioner or her ancestors within two years from the date of
declaration. Therefore, as per Section 11 (A) of the Land Acquisition
Act, the acquisition made by the State Government lapsed.
Sri P.K. Sahay, appearing for the State submits that as per
Section 11 (A) of the Land Acquisition Act, it is mandatory for the
State Government to make award within two years from the date of
declaration. He further submits that award has already been made
fixing compensation of Rs. 49,497.15, but neither ancestors of
petitioner nor petitioner taken that amount, because of that the same
has been deposited in the Treasury. Accordingly, he submits that
Section 11 (A) has no application in this case. Since the land in
question has already been acquired by the State Government,
therefore, petitioner has no right to sell it to some other persons that
too without disclosing the aforesaid fact. Thus, prima facie, offence is
made out against the petitioner.
Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly,
the anticipatory bail application is rejected.
(Prashant Kumar, J.)
sunil/