Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 467 (JHR)

Degni Devi v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.

2010-04-13

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2010
Order Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The dispute raised by the petitioner in this writ application is against the stand taken by the respondent B.C.C.L. that against the acquisition of 4.05 acres of lands belonging to the petitioner, only one employment would be provided to him whereas against the remaining 5.55 acres of land sought to be acquired, as many as four employments have been offered. The grievance of the petitioner is against the disproportionality of the offer of employment vis-a-vis the area of petitioner's land sought to be acquired. 3. From the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties, it appears that an agreement was initially entered into between respondent B.C.C.L. and the owners of the lands, measuring 9.60 acres, under which it was agreed that if the landowners deliver the possession of the 9.60 acres of lands to the respondent B.C.C.L., then the respondents would grant as many as five employments to the petitioner and the other claimants. It further appears from the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents that while the other owners of the lands pertaining to 5.55 acres had delivered possession of their lands, but the petitioner did not deliver the possession of the remaining 4.05 acres of land in spite of repeated demand from him and furthermore, the petitioner has also not produced any reliable document to confirm his right and title over the 4.05 acres of land. Learned counsel for the respondents informs that though the petitioner had later produced a letter purpotedly issued by the Land and Revenue Deputy Commissioner, but in absence of any signature of the authority who had issued the letter, such document could not be considered as reliable and furthermore, from the verification of the Khatihan it transpires that the land has been recorded as Gairmazaruwa land belonging to the State Government and if this is so, then the petitioner may not have any right of claim over the land at all. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would counter the statement by referring to the information obtained by him under the Right to Information Act from the office of the L.R.D.C. and submit that the information would confirm that the L.R.D.C. had issued the certificate declaring the right, title and interest of the petitioner over 4.05 acres of land referred to in this case. 5. 5. Be that as it may, it appears that the initial agreement was never acted upon by the petitioner and for all practical purposes, the same has been frustrated. However, considering the fact that the petitioner has asserted his right, title and interest over the land in question and his willingness to handover possession of the land to the respondent B.C.C.L., it would be appropriate that both parties including the petitioner and the other co-owners of the land pertaining to the total 9.60 acres, should sit together with the. concerned authorities of the respondent B.C.C.L. and sort out the matters in order to assess the proportion of compensation by way of employment to which the petitioner may deserve and upon a final understanding on the relevant issues, the parties may enter into a formal written agreement for binding their respective rights and obligations. 6. Considering the fact that the controversy raised in this writ application involves disputed questions of facts, this Court cannot possibly look into the same and pass any direction by way of any mandate upon the respondents. 7. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, this writ application is disposed of with a liberty to the parties to sit together and enter into a negotiation with each other on the relevant issues regarding the acquisition of the petitioner's land and the compensation by way of employment which he may deserve against his lands. For initiation of the negotiation, the petitioner may file a fresh representation giving his offer before the concerned authorities of the respondents particularly the Respondent No.2. The negotiations should be concluded preferably within three months from the date of receipt of representation of the petitioner.