Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1483 (JHR)

Dineshwar Prasad v. C. M. D. , C. C. L. , Ranchi

2012-09-27

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2012
Order Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of mandamus upon the respondents to pay compensation for the land acquired for construction of C.C.L. washery and providing employment to the dependent of the petitioner. 3. According to the petitioner 174 acres of land of village Dania were acquired under Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Area (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 for construction of C.C.L. washery. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in respect of 5 acres of land in plot no. 505 under khata no. 37 of the said Village-Dania the respondents did not pay compensation and instead asked the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro vide letter dated 5.1.1996 and 21.1.1996 (Annexures6 and 6/1) for confirmation of rayati rights of the petitioner for settlement of payment of compensation and employment to the dependants. Counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the certified copy of the order dated 28.11 .1984 issued by the Circle Officer, Gomia accepting the rent receipt since the date of vesting of zamindari. It is submitted that the Circle Officer submitted his report to the Deputy Collector Land Ceiling and further the Additional Collector, Bokaro informed the General Manager, Land Revenue, C.C.L. vide letter dated 1.4.2003 (Annexures-12 and 13) confirming the rayati rights of the mother of the petitioner. It is contended by the petitioner that in spite of the same the compensation is not being paid and employment to the dependent has also been denied by the respondent, despite the acquisition of 5 acres of petitioner's land. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-C.C.L. on the other hand submitted that 174 acres of land were acquired for' coal mine purpose under the provision of Act of 1957 in Village-Dania vide notification being 8.0. No. 981 (E) dated 22.12.1980. According to the respondent under the said Act, although there is no provision to provide employment to the dependent, but the respondents have formulated a scheme with regard to providing employment to the land losers who fulfill the criteria laid down in the said scheme for rehabilitation purpose. No. 981 (E) dated 22.12.1980. According to the respondent under the said Act, although there is no provision to provide employment to the dependent, but the respondents have formulated a scheme with regard to providing employment to the land losers who fulfill the criteria laid down in the said scheme for rehabilitation purpose. In an application made by the mother of the petitioner, she was asked to submit the certified copy of the relevant documents relating to her claim of settlement of lands in her favour, but instead of submitting the certified copy she submitted the photo-copy of the documents which reveals several discrepancies like; the claim was based on unregistered deed of settlement i.e. a sada hukumnana granted by the ex-landlord not supported by any documentary evidence such as return filed by the ex-landlord at the time of vesting under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. Only the photocopy of the rent receipt issued in the year 1953 was submitted but no' Government rent receipt was submitted for the intervening period from 1953 till 1981 when the claimant filed a case before the Circle Officer, Gomia. The claimant has raised her claim long after notification under Section 9(1) of the Act and subsequent vesting by notification dated 22.12.1980. As per the provision of the act and notification the lands have been vested with the C.C.L. free from all encumbrances and such claim cannot be entertained. Even the rent receipt which have been enclosed have been issued at one stretch from 1981 to 1990 and no proof of payment before that date is available. 5. Counsel for the respondents further submitted by referring to Annexure-A, copy of the khatiyan of relevant plot no. 505 and khata no. 37 that it is 'jhari' land. He also submitted by referring the averments made in the writ petition itself in para 5 that the petitioner had himself stated that said 5 acres of land was a 'gair majurwa' land settled in the name of the mother of the petitioner. 505 and khata no. 37 that it is 'jhari' land. He also submitted by referring the averments made in the writ petition itself in para 5 that the petitioner had himself stated that said 5 acres of land was a 'gair majurwa' land settled in the name of the mother of the petitioner. It is further submitted that from the said para 5 of the writ petition it would further appear that in respect of 7.61 acres of rayati land of father of the petitioner, the matter had been taken before the Tribunal constituted under Section 14(2) of the Act of 1957, where after first appeal being F.A. No. 12 of 1989(R) was also preferred in which certain modification of the market value of the acquired land together with interest was granted. Further, the appeal filed by the Respondent being L.P.A. No. 463 of 1998(R) was dismissed. However, it is submitted by the respondent's counsel that strangely in respect of claim of 5 acres of 'gair majurwa' land petitioner or his mother never raised dispute before the duly constituted Tribunal under the Act, which has the jurisdiction to entertain and decide such dispute. Learned counsel for the respondent has also referred to the report of Circle Officer, contained at Annexure-12 to the reply to the counter affidavit that from perusal of the said report it would appear that the first attempt to get the rent fixed of the said land was made in the year 1981 itself and for the entire period since• the vesting of zamindari till 1981, there are no cogent document or proof to substantiate the claim of the petitioner. 6. Heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant documents on record. From perusal of the documents brought on record, it appears that in respect of 7.61 acres of rayati land in the name of father of the petitioner, the claim for compensation has been settled by taking the matter up to the• Tribunal and further in First Appeal and L.P.A. on behalf of the claimant/petitioner. However, other 5 acres of land for which the present case has been initiated relates to 'gair majurwa' land said to be settled in the name of the petitioner by the erstwhile zamindar by a sada hukumnama. However, other 5 acres of land for which the present case has been initiated relates to 'gair majurwa' land said to be settled in the name of the petitioner by the erstwhile zamindar by a sada hukumnama. The first attempt to get rent receipt and issuance of bandobasti was initiated in the year 1981 after vesting of land upon C.C.L. The document relied by the petitioner i.e. report of the Additional Collector only reiterate the fact that the order for issuance of rent receipt of the said land has been issued in the year 1984 for the first time wherein after rent receipt has been issued w.e.f. 1981. The aforesaid document and the fact that the land itself was 'gair majurwa' land shown as 'jhari' in the khatiyan and no document showing the return filed by the zamindar at the time of vesting under the Bihar Land Reforms Act leaves the only impression that the material, which are relied upon by the petitioner do not inspire confidence that the petitioner has valid claim to right, title and ownership of the property in question. The issue being disputed question of fact, this court is constrained in• issuing writ of mandamus as sought for by the petitioner for compensation of the said land said to be acquired by the C.C.L. 7. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, I do not find any merit in the writ application. 8. However, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to approach the appropriate forum available in law for redressal of his grievances. 9. Liberty is granted. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. .