Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 45 (JHR)

Barkatullah Momin v. State of Jharkhand

2003-01-08

TAPEN SEN

body2003
Order Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Pradip Modi, learned G.P.1. 2. At the very outset learned counsel for the Petitioner prayed permission to implead the Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand as Respondent NO.5. Let him do so during the course of the day. 3. The Writ Petitioners have prayed for compensation and other benefits payable to them under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act on account of acquisition of their properties for purposes of Swarnarekha Multipurpose Project. 4. The Counter Affidavit of the Respondent No.4 discloses at various paragraphs that only for want of funds, the compensation could not be paid and the matter could not be settled. In this context the statements made in paragraphs 13 and 16 become very important inasmuch as it has been specifically stated that payment of compensation could not be made for want of allotment of fund which is to be provided by the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms. It has also been stated that after bifurcation of the State of Jharkhand and after receipt of sanction or allotment of fund from the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, payment of compensation can be possible and for which all necessary steps have already been taken according to the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and two years time is required for completion of the entire proceeding in relation to final settlement. 5. According to the Petitioners, the lands in questions were acquired in the year 1987-88 as stated in paragraph 10 of the Writ Petition, whereas according to the Respondents, the lands were taken possession of on 21.09.1992. Taking the aforesaid dates as to whether if the lands were acquired in 1987-88 or 1991-92, what does appear is that the lands, in fact, had been acquired a very long time ago, and even if 1992 is taken to be correct, even then more than ten years have lapsed and therefore, the suggestion/submission indicated at paragraph 16 of the Writ Application that two years period is required is, in the opinion of this Court, an unusually long period, which the Respondents are seeking. Another important factor is that this Counter Affidavit was filed on 21.06.2001 and two years period would now come to an end on 21.06.2003. Another important factor is that this Counter Affidavit was filed on 21.06.2001 and two years period would now come to an end on 21.06.2003. That being the position, the matter is disposed off by giving a direction upon the newly added Respondent NO.5 to look into the matter and do the needful with all expedition at his disposal and in view of the admitted position, the payment of compensation could not be made, the grievance of the Petitioner should be redressed and the newly added Respondent should take all necessary steps so that funds are made available for payment of compensation strictly in accordance with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. The entire exercise should be concluded by August, 2003. 6. With the aforesaid observations and directions this Writ application is disposed off. However, there shall be no order as to costs.