Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1363 (JHR)

Rajani Koiri @ Koiry v. State of Jharkhand

2012-09-11

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2012
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. 2. It appears that service of notice was treated to have been validly served upon the respondent No.6 despite thereof no one appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 6 to contest the writ petition. 3. The writ petitioner has moved this Court being aggrieved by the decision of the respondent No.3 the Special Land Acquisition Officer as inspite of objection raised by the petitioner and other co-sharers the amount of compensation in lieu of acquisition of land in Land Acquisition Case No. 38 of 2001-02 appertaining to khata No. 117 of plot Nos. 578 and 622 having an area of 1.38 acres of mouja Tiruldih for construction of Swarna Rekha Multipurpose Project totaling Rs.1,91,298/- was paid to the said respondent No.6. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner by referring to the averment made in the writ petition and other affidavits brought on record that pursuant to the order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer dated 31st March. 2006. Annexure A to the supplementary counter affidavit of the respondent - State the entire amount of compensation in lieu of acquisition of the aforesaid piece of land has been paid to the respondent No.6 vide cheque No. 0089504 dated 31st March, 2006 issued in the name of respondent No.6 to be honoured by the Union Bank of India. Chandil. It is the contention of the petitioner that a notification for acquisition of the said land was issued in connection with Swarna Rekha Multipurpose Project. Chandil and the petitioner along with his two brothers respondent No. 6 and another Durga Charan Koiri who were in possession of the aforesaid land in question in equal share. made their objection. It is further submitted by referring to Annexure 1 to the writ petition that the petitioner was served notice under Section 9 of the Act along with other co-sharers who filed objection as contained Annexures 2 and 2/1 clearly stating that his father Doman Koiri died leaving behind five sons out of which one son Purna Chandra died issueless and Gauri Nath died leaving behind his son Shanti Koiri who is respondent No.6 and other son Mukund died leaving behind his only daughter Sanu who had never made any claim over the property of her grandfather. The genealogy of the petitioner's family was also furnished in the objection. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that despite the fact that the acquired land was in joint possession between the parties as would also appear from the valuation statements annexed as Annexure 4 to the I.A. No. 2454/2012 the entire amount in respect of compensation for acquired land was supposed to be apportioned in the name of the petitioner and other co-sharers totaling Rs.1,91,298/- however the respondent. Special Land Acquisition Officer by order dated 31st March, 2006. Annexure-A to the supplementary counter-affidavit despite of the categorical objection of the petitioner duly supported by facts rejected the claim of the petitioner and directed payment of the awarded amount of Rs.1,91,298/- in favour of Shanti Koiri who is respondent No. 6 herein. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, further submits that a notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was served upon the petitioner after publication of the award in the name of petitioner and other co-sharers as contained in Annexure 3 to the said I.A. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner made an objection for reference of the claim to the reference Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. Annexure 2/1 however the respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer failed to refer the matter to the reference Court thereafter the petitioner was compelled to move this Court. On the first date when the matter was taken up this Court directed the respondent No.5 the Branch Manager. 'Union Bank of India not to permit the respondent No.6 to withdraw the entire amount of compensation except upto 1/3rd of the amount awarded. However it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Bank in their counter affidavit have stated that by that time the awarded amount through the cheque in question was honoured in favour of the private respondent. 7. However it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Bank in their counter affidavit have stated that by that time the awarded amount through the cheque in question was honoured in favour of the private respondent. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent State on the other hand has supported the disbursement of the amount under award in favour of the respondent No. 6 by referring to the order dated 31st March, 2006 as contained in Annexure-A to the supplementary counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner could not produce the cogent evidence in support of his claim for compensation as a result of which his objection was rejected and the amount was ordered to be paid in favour of the respondent No. 6. It is further stated that several opportunities were given to the petitioner but he failed to produce enough material to substantiate his claim of compensation in respect of the acquired land in question. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the Land Acquisition Officer has rejected the claim of the petitioner vide Annexure A. the order dated 31st March, 2006 on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce enough evidence and has proceeded to issue notice under Section 12(2) of the Act which is mandatory requirement under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The petitioner had submitted his petition for reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act in connection with Land Acquisition Case No. 38 of 2001-02 but the Special Land Acquisition Officer has failed to make any reference to the same despite the said claim for reference of the dispute made by the petitioner after issuance of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act of 1894. 9. From the aforesaid fact it appears that the requirement of law as laid down under the Land Acquisition Act. 1894 has not been followed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The Land Acquisition Act 1894 itself provides for consideration of the claim of the parties affected by acquisition of the land undertaken by the said Act. 10. Admittedly the petitioner had made an objection in respect of acquisition of land claiming himself to be a co-sharer giving his genealogy etc. but at the relevant point of time the amount in. question has been awarded in favour of the respondent No.6. 10. Admittedly the petitioner had made an objection in respect of acquisition of land claiming himself to be a co-sharer giving his genealogy etc. but at the relevant point of time the amount in. question has been awarded in favour of the respondent No.6. The petition for reference made by the petitioner under Section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 ought to have been referred by the District Land Acquisition to the Reference Court for adjudication of the dispute relating to apportionment of the claim for compensation or any part thereof. 11. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances therefore the Special Land Acquisition Officer is directed to refer the dispute of the claim made by the petitioner under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Reference Court forthwith on receipt of a copy of this order. However it will be open to the petitioner to raise all valid grounds and legal questions in relation to the claim for compensation before the Reference Court and the Reference, Court will thereafter proceed and decide the matter in accordance with law. 12. This writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. 13. I.A. No. 2454/2012 also stands disposed of. Petition allowed.