Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 268 (JHR)

Subhendu Roy v. State of Jharkhand

2010-02-19

DABBIRU GANESHRAO PATNAIK

body2010
ORDER : D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 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. Almost nine years thereafter, a Notification u/s 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 u/s 11A of the Act, since no Award could be made within the statutory period of two years. Consequently, on 15.01.2002, a fresh Notification u/s 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. 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 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 u/s 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 u/s 4 of the L.A. Act, in 1998, 0.45 acres of the pond was also included. In the notice issued u/s 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 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 along with 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 along with a sketch map. The sketch map had also included 0.45 acres of pond, which fell within the 60 acres of land. It also appears that along with 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 along with 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 u/s 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. 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. 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.