Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 671 (JHR)

Vijay Lal v. Central Coalfields Ltd.

2012-05-01

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, PRAKASH TATIA

body2012
Order 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner-appellant's case is that his house was acquired as back as in the year 1989 and the award was passed in the year 1995 determining the compensation for the petitioner's house to the tune of Rs.2,17,403.29. It is submitted the petitioner was not paid the compensation amount even after determination and thereafter on th May, 2008, a new Policy for compensation came into effect. The petitioner was offered compensation in the year 2010. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner should have been given compensation as per the new compensation policy of 19th May, 2008, for the land acquired by the award of the year 1995. 3. Learned Single Judge found that the petitioner, in spite of acquisition of his house, did not vacate the house and is not entitled to receive compensation as per the new policy as it cannot be applied to old decided matters so as to reopen old matters or even the matters in which the parties did not take compensation for such a long period of 15 years. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that after this L.PA, the respondent-company itself has submitted a reference petition in the civil court and therefore, also the petitioner's case is required to be considered according to the new policy. It is also submitted that the respondent-company kept the money with it and therefore, is liable to pay interest. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-company submitted that the facts stated are absolutely false and the petitioner has received the compensation amount against the land acquisition and the petitioner's son was given employment by the respondent-company. 6. We considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents, perused the facts stated in the L.P.A and reasons given in the impugned order. 7. Admittedly the land acquisition proceedings were started in the year 1989 and culminated finally in the award passed in the year 1995. The petitioner did not challenge the compensation determined in the award in accordance with law since 1995 to 2010 for about 15 years. Therefore, the petitioner's compensation stood finally determined by the award of the year 1995 and he cannot get more than what has been awarded. The petitioner also did not vacate the house as has been noticed and is not disputed. Therefore, the petitioner's compensation stood finally determined by the award of the year 1995 and he cannot get more than what has been awarded. The petitioner also did not vacate the house as has been noticed and is not disputed. When the respondent-company held camp near the house of the petitioner, the petitioner was again offered compensation amount which he did not accept, whereas some of the persons accepted the compensation. The petitioner since did not accept the compensation, now the amount has been deposited in the civil court and that does not make the decided case of land acquisition revived so as to have any application of any new policy. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly admitted that in the new policy, there is no provision of revival of old cases and of its reopening. If such would have been position, the position would have been very chaotic. 8. Be that as it may, there is no substantial legal right of the petitioner to take benefit of the new policy of compensation which may have been provided by the respondent-company. The petitioner could have got interest amount only if there had been any contract or under statutory provision because of the reason that the learned counsel for the petitioner could not show any of the provisions under which the respondent-company was liable to make payment of interest beyond the term of the award. In view of the above reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is dismissed.