Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 965 (JHR)

Kanti Mahanty Rohini v. State of Jharkhand

2014-09-12

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2014
JUDGMENT SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. 1. The writ petition has been filed seeking release of the land in question in favour of the petitioners on the ground that the said land was neither acquired for the Swarnrekha Multipurpose Project nor required by the State Government. The petitioners have based their claim on letter dated 13.09.2007. The writ petition was filed on 30.09.2010 and thereafter, counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents and a rejoinder affidavit has also been filed. The respondent nos. 2, 4 and 5 have filed supplementary counter-affidavit and thereafter, on 09.09.2014 the present application seeking amendment in the prayer clause of the writ petition has been filed. The petitioners have sought addition of the following prayer in the prayer clause of the writ petition:- "For issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of declaration that the entire land acquisition proceedings in connection with the land involved in this case has lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 particularly in view of the fact that the compensation amount has admittedly been deposited in Government Treasury and not in court and further hold that the entire land acquisition proceedings so far as the land of the petitioners is concerned is fit to be set aside on account of noncompliance of the mandatory provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, rules and instructions/ circulars issued thereunder as already mentioned in the main writ petition." 2. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that in the writ petition the petitioners produced a typed copy of letter dated 13.09.2007, the veracity of which was doubted and disputed by the respondents and therefore, the petitioners obtained a true copy of letter dated 13.09.2007 through RTI. It is stated that the petitioners obtained copies of the letters dated 19.02.2008, 23.06.2014, 02.07.2008, 20.04.2010, etc. through RTI and the present amendment has been filed for bringing these documents on record in support of the claim made by the petitioners. It is further submitted that in view of the amendment in the Land Acquisition Act, the filing of the amendment application was necessitated. through RTI and the present amendment has been filed for bringing these documents on record in support of the claim made by the petitioners. It is further submitted that in view of the amendment in the Land Acquisition Act, the filing of the amendment application was necessitated. The amendment as sought by the petitioners would not change the nature of the case and it would not cause any prejudice to the respondents, if the amendment is allowed by the Court. It is further submitted that while deciding the application seeking amendment, the Courts would generally take a liberal approach and amendment can be allowed at any stage of the proceeding. It is further submitted that if the application for amendment is not allowed, the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss and injury. The State itself filed the Title Suit No. 25 of 2011 seeking declaration of its title over the suit property and sought a declaration that the acquisition of the suit property was in accordance with law. 3. Mr. Jai Prakash, the learned AAG submitted that the land in question was acquired in the year, 1983 itself and the petitioners have admitted that the compensation amount was deposited in treasury. After all these years the petitioners now have challenged the acquisition. Basing their claim through letter dated 13.09.2007, they have moved this Court seeking release of their land. It is submitted that insofar, as Title Suit No. 25 of 2011 is concerned, it was primarily filed in view of the subsequent transfer made by the petitioner no. 1 in favour of petitioner no. 2 and that was the reason a declaration was sought from the Court with respect to validity of the acquisition and title in favour of the State. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. It appears that the writ petition was preferred by the petitioners seeking release of the land in view of the letter dated 19.02.2008. A statement was also made by the petitioners in paragraph no. 17 with respect to issuance of letter dated 13.09.2007. The petitioners have contended that the Deputy Commissioner as well as the Special Land Acquisition Officer have written letters which would support the claim of the petitioners for release of land in their favour. A statement was also made by the petitioners in paragraph no. 17 with respect to issuance of letter dated 13.09.2007. The petitioners have contended that the Deputy Commissioner as well as the Special Land Acquisition Officer have written letters which would support the claim of the petitioners for release of land in their favour. After going through the documents filed on behalf of the petitioners, copies of which have been annexed in the amendment application, I am of the view that these documents may advance the case of the petitioners insofar as, their prayer in the writ petition seeking release of their land in question, is concerned. Insofar as the prayer sought to be added by the petitioners is concerned, it involves an entirely different cause of action. 6. Insofar as the prayer sought to be added by the petitioners is concerned, the issue would be whether by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 the entire Land Acquisition has lapsed or not. This would require the petitioners to plead and prove entirely different set of facts from the pleading in the writ petition. The prayer as sought by the petitioners cannot be allowed, as it would change the very nature of the writ petition itself. The prayer which has been sought to be added by the petitioners, can be subject matter of a separate writ petition. The documents which the petitioners have filed in the interlocutory application can be brought on record filing an application seeking permission to bring additional documents on record or by filing a supplementary affidavit. The petitioners cannot be permitted to add a prayer entirely different from the original prayer in the writ petition. 7. In view of the aforesaid, I.A. No. 4766 of 2014 is dismissed. However, petitioners are permitted to file supplementary affidavit. 8. Post the matter on 23.09.2014 under the heading for Final Disposal.