Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1675 (JHR)

Anurag Murmu v. State of Jharkhand

2012-11-30

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2012
ORDER By the Court.-Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner had come before this Court for commanding the respondents not to interfere with peaceful possession of the petitioner over piece of land belonging to the petitioner over Plot Nos. 380, 381, 384, 385 of khata Nos. 9 and 10 measuring an area of 29 decimals of village Chiraundi, Thana No. 186, District-Ranchi from making any kind of construction of road or lane over the land of the-petitioner. 3. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid land in Plot Nos. 380, 381, 384 and 385 of khata Nos. 10 and 9 are recorded in the Revisional Survey Record of right in the name of Chaita Munda Son of Chamra Munda as "Kaymi". The petitioner has purchased 14 and 1/2 decimal of land of the said plots from Madho Munda and other who are the legal heirs of khatiyani raiyat from. Chaita Munda after taking permission of transfer of land under Section 46 of the C.N.T. Act, 1908 in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 27.10.1993. The sale-deed was also executed on 12.08.1994 by the legal heirs of the khatiyani raiyat in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner got the land mutated in the office of Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Ranchi and correction slip was issued on 16.10.1995 on which rent has been paid by the petitioner. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that he also purchased 14 and 1/2 MI decimals of the remaining portion of the land after taking permission vide order dated 07.05.2004 from the rent suit Deputy Collector, Ranchi and a sale was also executed on 09.09.2005 by the legal heirs of the khatiyani raiyat. However, the petitioner has been rudely taken aback by the acts of the respondents by which the road' or lane is being sought to be constructed over the land of the petitioner. 4. Earlier, this Court had observed that if, the respondents- State want to construct road or land over the land of the petitioner. it cannot be done without acquiring the land and the construction of the road was stayed till further orders. Subsequently, again the respondents were asked to clearly state that whether the road is required in public interest or not and whether they can construct the road without actually using the petitioner's land in question. it cannot be done without acquiring the land and the construction of the road was stayed till further orders. Subsequently, again the respondents were asked to clearly state that whether the road is required in public interest or not and whether they can construct the road without actually using the petitioner's land in question. The respondent-state had earlier filed affidavits and after the order dated 04.07.2012, had again filed an affidavit on 08.10.2012. 5. The respondents authorities have taken stand which has been stated in the said counter-affidavit that the link road from the Morabadi Boreya Main Road to Bhitha has been in existence since last several decades. Since, it was in existence as rural kacha Road with an unbridged gap near Chiraundi nala this link road was important for providing main thorough fare to the rural populace and linkages for the rural market for the agricultural produce of the rural folks. In order to correct the alignment the villagers of the said village and adjoining villages approached the Government authorities for construction of all weather road and a R.C.C. Bridge over the Chiraundi nala, as the said road in rainy season was badly affected causing difficulty to the Commuting public. It is stated in their affidavit that the main object to construct the R.C.C. Road and R.C.C. Road was for over all development for the village Bhitha, Chiraundi, Boreya and Arsande. A sum of Rs. 5,54,400/- was sanctioned for construction of 1000 ft., of R.C.C. Road under District plan of Ranchi, in the year 2005-06 prior to construction of the road, two span R.C.C. Bridge was constructed on Chiraundi nala, in the year 2005-06 but no objection was raised by the villagers. 6. The State Electricity Board has already erected poles alongside the kacha Road for rural electrification works. After consent and co-operation of the villagers of Bhitha, Chiraundi and Boreya, road construction work in the instant case began. However, after initial construction, the petitioner started raising objection about the portion of the raityati land as claimed by the petitioner which was left kacha. It has created gap in the R.C.C. Road of which the estimated road length is 1000 ft. It is stated that about 15 decimals of the land of the petitioner traverses on the road being constructed over which earlier also the villagers enjoyed right to passage. It has created gap in the R.C.C. Road of which the estimated road length is 1000 ft. It is stated that about 15 decimals of the land of the petitioner traverses on the road being constructed over which earlier also the villagers enjoyed right to passage. Inquiry was done by the Circle Officer and detailed report was submitted to the Deputy Development Commissioner, Ranchi by Annexure-D dated 13.04.2006, based upon these and other facts. it is stated that the construction of the road is important for the development of the area otherwise the area and the villages on the other side of the Chiraundi nala will remain cut off from Morabadi-Boreya main road and development would be affected causing public inconvenience and hindering the right of passage of the villagers. Public petitions are attached as Annexure-C. The respondents thereafter, have stated that in view of the order passed earlier in this case. 29 decimals out of 41 decimals has been offered to the petitioner in terms of exchange basis as per the schedule indicated at pages 18 and 19 of the said supplementary counter-affidavit in mouza-Chiraundi Plot No. 383, Area 0.23 acres and Plot No. 367. Area-0.18 acres. However, the respondents clearly stated that if, the petitioner is not agreeable to exchange of the land on the alternative piece of land then the respondents can initiate proposal for acquiring the land involved in construction of the road in' question on payment of compensation to the petitioner. 7. The petitioner had earlier filed rejoinder to the previous counter-affidavit dated 03.07.2006 but even after seeking adjournments after filing of the instant affidavit on 08.10.2012, no rejoinder to the same has been filed, although time has been taken twice on that account. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have not been able to show that the land is required for a public purpose. 8. It is further stated that it is raiyati land of the petitioner and it is being used for the benefit of some person, who, it appears has not being made party in the writ petition. 8. It is further stated that it is raiyati land of the petitioner and it is being used for the benefit of some person, who, it appears has not being made party in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has also stated during the course of arguments that the petitioner would have been agreeable if his lands are being purchased at the valuation of rupees Five Lacs per decimal i.e. the prevalent rate of the land in question in the area where the petitioner's land situate. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the relevant materials on record including the last affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. It appears that construction of a road has been undertaken which connects a Bridge on way over Chiraundi nala giving access to the villagers on the side of the said road and thereafter the respondents have accordingly proceeded to construct R.C.C. Road, which also instantly passed over the area of land belonging to the petitioner. The respondents have in their affidavit given reasons for construction of the road in public interest. The respondents have also made offers of exchange of plot in lieu of the plot being used for construction of the road to the petitioner or in the alternative to undertake the exercise of acquisition of the land by following the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 10. This Court in the present circumstances is not in a position to determine as to whether the land is required for public purpose or not. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is a complete code in itself. whereunder in case land of a person is being sought to be acquired by the State, a detailed procedure is laid down, whereunder the land looser has all the opportunity to make objections under Section 5(A) of the Act, in question. 11. These issues, whether the purpose is a public purpose or not? Whether the valuation of the land should be Rs.500,000/- per decimal or more or less, are matters which are required to be decided by the competent authority under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. 1894. The aggrieved person always has a remedy to object to the same and also to seek reference being aggrieved by the award itself in question before the reference Court. 12. 1894. The aggrieved person always has a remedy to object to the same and also to seek reference being aggrieved by the award itself in question before the reference Court. 12. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it therefore, appears that if the construction of the road by the respondents-State is required for public purpose and the petitioner is not agreeable to any exchange of land in lieu thereof they arc required to proceed in accordance with law under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. 1894 for the acquisition of the same by following the procedure prescribed thereof within a reasonable time. 13. This Court, therefore, refrains from expressing anything on merit other than directing the respondents to proceed in accordance with law under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of the land of the petitioner in question, in case it is required for a public purpose. It is made clear that any construction of road over the petitioner's land should follow only after the land in question is acquired in terms of Land Acquisition Act 1894. 14. With the aforesaid observations and directions this Writ petition is disposed of. Petition disposed of