Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 140 (JHR)

Somwari Manjhiain v. State of Jharkhand

2015-02-02

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2015
ORDER : Seeking a direction to the respondents for issuance of “Vikas Pustika” to the petitioners and to provide benefit under Revised Rehabilitation Scheme, 2003 and Revised Rehabilitation Scheme, 2012, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The brief facts of the case narrated in the writ petition can be summerised thus: The petitioners have their ancestral house and raiyati lands recorded in their names and/or in the name of their ancestors. The land and house of the petitioners were acquired by the State Government during 198687 for construction of dam under the Swarnrekha Multipurpose Project and compensation for the house and/or lands has been duly paid to the petitioners under different awards prepared in their names. It is stated that after the acquisition, the house and/or lands of the petitioners were completely submersed in the water and the petitioners thus became fully displaced persons. The Water Resources Department published a Revised Scheme for Rehabilitation, 2003, which was further revised in the year, 2012 for the families, who after acquisition of their house and/or lands became fully displaced persons. The petitioners applied in prescribed proforma for issuance of “Vikas Pustika” in their names and when it was not issued in their names, the petitioners gave a legal notice on 05.09.2012 still, “Vikas Pustika” has not been issued by the respondents in the name of the petitioners and therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners refers to Revised Rehabilitation Scheme, 2012 and submits that the 2012 Scheme is applicable in case of the petitioners as, partial benefit under the earlier Scheme has not been extended to the petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioners are illiterate persons, who could not pursue their claim diligently however, the benefit which has accrued to them on account of acquisition of their lands and houses, cannot be denied to them. 5. As against the above, Mr. V.K. Prasad, S.C. (L & C), the learned counsel appearing for the respondentState of Jharkhand submits that more than 27 years after the land was acquired and compensation was paid to the petitioners, no direction can be issued to the respondents for issuing “Vikas Pustika” to the petitioners. 5. As against the above, Mr. V.K. Prasad, S.C. (L & C), the learned counsel appearing for the respondentState of Jharkhand submits that more than 27 years after the land was acquired and compensation was paid to the petitioners, no direction can be issued to the respondents for issuing “Vikas Pustika” to the petitioners. In any case, the petitioners are not entitled for benefit under the Revised Rehabilitation Scheme, 2003 or the Scheme of 2012. 6. Having heard counsel for the parties and after perusing the documents on record, I am of the opinion that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. In the writ petition, the petitioners have stated as under: “5. That the aforesaid houses and lands of the petitioners have been duly acquired by the State Government in between the year 198687 for construction of dam under Swarnrekha Multipurpose Project and the compensations for the said house and/or the lands have been duly paid to the petitioners under different Awards prepared in their names”. 7. The documents produced by the petitioners do not disclose that a part of compensation was not paid to the petitioners or the benefit under the Scheme, which was operating during 198687 have not been extended to the petitioners. Inspite of opportunity granted to the petitioners, the Scheme which was operating during 198688 has not been brought on record. It appears that the petitioners applied for “Vikas Pustika” in the year, 2012. The petitioners have not explained the delay in applying for issuance of “Vikas Pustika”. Referring to Revised Rehabilitation Scheme, 2012, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that each person of a family is entitled for a separate “Vikas Pustika” and though the petitioners could not apply in time, they are entitled for “Vikas Pustika” in their individual names. I find no substance in the submission. It is specifically mentioned in the 2012Scheme that the operation of the Scheme would be prospective and only to the extent if same benefit under the earlier Scheme has not been extended to a displaced person, the Revised Rehabilitation Scheme, 2012 has been made applicable. It is the specific case of the petitioners that award was prepared and they have been duly paid compensation. The application made by the petitioners for “Vikas Pustika” after more than 25 years lacks bonafide and appears to be intended at getting illegal advantage under the 2012Scheme. 8. It is the specific case of the petitioners that award was prepared and they have been duly paid compensation. The application made by the petitioners for “Vikas Pustika” after more than 25 years lacks bonafide and appears to be intended at getting illegal advantage under the 2012Scheme. 8. In the result, I do not find merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.