[1]
[W.P. (C) No. 3867 of 2005]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
W.P. (C) No. 3867 of 2005
...
Subhendu Roy ... ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Jharkhand,
Ranchi.
3. Director, Land Acquisition Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. Commissioner, Palamau, Daltonganj.
5. Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, Daltonganj.
6. Addl. Collector, Palamau, Daltonganj.
7. Special Land Acquisition Officer, North Koel Project, Palamau,
Daltonganj.
8. Special Land Acquisition Officer, North Koel Project, Palamau,
Daltonganj.
9. The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Jharkhand.
10. Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Medninagar.
... Respondents.
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioner : - Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents : - Mr. Lalit Kr. Lal, S.C. (L&C).
...
C.A.V. On: - 27/01/2010 Delivered On: - 19 / 02 /2010
...
44/ 19 .02 .2010 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. From the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties,
the facts which emerge are as follows: -
The petitioner was in occupation of 60 acres
of land of Village-Hisra Pokhraha.
Upon requisition of the Executive Engineer,
Auranga Construction Division, Tumbagarh,
Daltonganj dated-26.04.1989, petitioner's 60 acres
of land was acquired for the purposes of
rehabilitation of displaced family of the Auranga
Reservoir Forest.
The possession of the 60 acres of land of the
petitioner was taken over by the concerned
Department of the State Government and
construction work on the lands were commenced by
the concerned Department way back in 1989 itself.
Upon occupying the lands and commencing
construction thereon, the house structures standing
on the lands were also demolished.
[2]
[W.P. (C) No. 3867 of 2005]
Almost nine years thereafter, a Notification
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was
published in the District Gazette for the acquisition
of 60 acres of the petitioner's land.
However, the Land Acquisition Proceedings
had lapsed under Section 11 A of the Act, since no
Award could be made within the statutory period of
two years.
Consequently, on 15.01.2002, a fresh
Notification under Section 4 of the Act was
published in the District Gazette for acquisition of
48.73 acres of land.
On 05.011.2003, the D.C., Palamau
recommended for De-Notification of 18.50 acres of
land out of the 48.73 acres on the ground that on
verification, it was found that 16.66 acres of land
falls within Forest area and 2 acres etc. outside the
requisitioned plan.
However, The Land Acquisition Proceeding
again lapsed during de-notification, since it
remained inconclusive
3. Since the petitioner had not received any compensation for his
lands, which were acquired ever since the date of he was dispossessed in 1989, he
filed a writ application for a direction upon the Respondents to pay compensation
not only for the lands acquired but also for his residential house and other
building structures, which were demolished by the Respondents and also for the
pond, which fell within the acquired lands.
4. By interim order dated-13.06.2007, in the light of the undertaking
given by the Respondents to pay 80 per cent of the awarded amount, this Court
had directed the Respondents to pay the legally payable amount to the petitioner.
Pursuant to the interim order, the Respondents paid some
amount purporting to be 80 per cent of the estimated payable compensation. The
remaining 20 per cent has not been paid to the petitioner.
5. Upon receiving the 80 per cent amount and also upon verifying the
estimated award of compensation, as indicated in Annexure-A to the counter
affidavit of the Respondents, the petitioner has assessed that the estimated amount
is only for 30.23 acres of land. Furthermore, no compensation was assessed for
the damaged house and other structures and for the pond, which existed since
[3]
[W.P. (C) No. 3867 of 2005]
prior to the date of acquisition of the land. The petitioner has therefore, claimed
compensation for the damage of his house and for the pond.
6. The Respondents have filed their counter affidavit and in the
supplementary counter affidavit filed by them, it has been stated that the
Respondents had acquired only 30 acres of land and not the entire 60 acres.
The stand has been taken by the Respondents, is that the
estimated award of compensation, as fixed by Annexure-A, was paid to the
petitioner to his full and final satisfaction, which he has received without protest
and without any reservation at the time of receiving the amount and, therefore, the
petitioner cannot raise any claim for payment of any further amount.
A further dispute has been raised by the learned counsel for
the Respondents, that considering the fact that only 30 acres of land was acquired
and at the time of conducting a survey, the concerned authorities had not found
any existing building structure or pond within the area of land acquired, the
Respondents are not liable to pay any compensation for any such building or the
pond, which was not acquired at all.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would refute the above stand of
the Respondents by referring to the 'Kheshra' prepared after notification issued
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and on conducting a survey of the
land proposed to be acquired in which the pond was also included. In the notice
issued under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, in 1998, 0.45 acres of the pond was also
included. Furthermore, in the Report submitted by the Rehabilitation Officer on
17.06.1989
, after surveying the land proposed to be acquired, he has categorically
mentioned that residential houses existed on the flanks of the road within the area
proposed to be acquired under Plot No. 295.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues further, that undisputedly
the petitioner was dispossessed from his lands including the pond, way back in
1989 and since no award could be prepared for assessing the payment of
compensation all along, the petitioner has suffered extensive damage and loss. It
was only in the counter affidavit of the Respondents filed in this writ application,
that they have now come up with a stand that only 30 acres of petitioner’s land
had been acquired and that the Respondents have no concern with the remaining
30 acres. Learned counsel submits that even if the remaining 30 acres of land has
not been acquired, yet the petitioner is entitled to a reasonable amount of
compensation for the loss which was caused to him on being deprived all along
from enjoying the benefits of the cultivable produce of the land and the pond.
9. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going
through the documents on record, I find that admittedly, the petitioner’s 60 acres
[4]
[W.P. (C) No. 3867 of 2005]
of land was originally sought to be acquired in 1989 and the Rehabilitation
Officer had proceeded to take occupation of the land and had even commenced
construction work thereon. All such acts were undertaken even without initiating
a proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act.
It also appears that at the time of conducting the survey of
the lands proposed to be acquired, the Rehabilitation Officer had himself found
building structures standing on a portion of the acquired land in Plot No. 295 and
has affirmed the same in his report.
These building structures, which were in occupation of the
petitioner and other owners, were demolished by the Respondents. It also appears
that alongwith the requisition for acquiring 60 acres of the petitioner’s land, the
details of the land by reference to its plot numbers, area etc. were furnished
alongwith a sketch map. The sketch map had also included 0.45 acres of pond,
which fell within the 60 acres of land.
The Land Acquisition proceedings were finally initiated
after about nine years from the date of the petitioner’s dispossession from the land
by issuance of a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in
1998.
The Land Acquisition Proceedings could not conclude and
had to suffer a lapse and again a fresh notice was issued in January, 2002 for
requisition of 40. 73 acres of land. Later, upon the recommendation of the D.C.,
Palamau for de-notification of 18.50 acres of land sometime in the month of
November, 2003, the proposed acquisition of the land, was confined to 30 acres.
10. It is apparent from the above facts, that the decision to de-notify
and exclude the 30 acres of the petitioner’s lands was taken only in November,
2003 but all along, the petitioner remained dispossessed from his entire 60 acres
of land and was deprived from the benefits of his agricultural lands including the
benefits which he could have derived from the ponds.
11. The act of dispossessing the petitioner from his 60 acres of land in
the year 1989 even without initiating any land acquisition proceedings, has to be
deemed as executive excesses of the Respondents. Even after releasing the 30
acres of land pursuant to the de-notification in 2003, no information was
conveyed to the petitioner about the release of his 30 acres of land.
12. Under the circumstances, the petitioner is entitled for due
compensation for the mental torture, agony and harassment caused to him for
more than two decades.
[5]
[W.P. (C) No. 3867 of 2005]
13. Since the petitioner has admittedly received the amount of
compensation as per the estimated award for 30 acres of land, the concerned
authorities of the Respondents shall pay a sum of Rs.1 Lakh to the petitioner
towards compensation for the sufferings, which he had undergone since the date,
he was dispossessed of the remaining 30 acres of his lands which have now been
released after over two decades.
This amount of compensation shall be paid by the
Respondents within four weeks from the date of this order. In the event, the
Respondents fail to pay the amount within the period stipulated, the same shall
carry interest @ 10 per cent per annum calculated from the date when the amount
was made payable, by this order till final payment.
14. With these observations, this writ application stands disposed of.
15. Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the
Respondents.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)
APK