Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1485 (JHR)

Navin Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand

2015-11-27

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2015
ORDER : 1. Seeking a direction upon the respondents for payment of adequate compensation for 0.29 acres land comprised in Khata No. 29, Plot No. 523/4068, Thana-Itkhori, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitioner claiming right, title and interest over the land comprised in Khata No. 29, Plot No. 523/4068 asserts that the said land was purchased by his grand-father namely, late Prabhu Dayal through sale-deed in the year, 1954 and the land was mutated in the name of his grand-father. The petitioner when came to know that for development of Maa Bhadrakali Temple, Itkhori, respondents have erected a boundary wall over the land of the petitioner, he gave a legal notice dated 19.07.2011 to the respondents. On the application submitted by the petitioner, Halka Karamchari submitted report dated 03.08.2013 and the Circle Inspector, Itkhori also after verification submitted a report on 25.10.2013 to the Circle Officer confirming that 0.29 acres land under Plot No. 4068 is within Maa Bhadrakali Temple and the Tourism Department has acquired 0.13 decimals land. Aggrieved by non-payment of compensation for the aforesaid 0.29 acres land, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3. At this stage, Mr. V.K. Prasad, the learned counsel for the respondents tenders a copy of order dated 10.09.2015 in W.P. (C) No. 310 of 2014 and submits that the petitioner raising claims over different plots has filed atleast 3 writ petitions however, he has failed to disclose the said fact in the present writ petition. The learned counsel submits that on 23.11.2015 another writ petition bearing W.P. (C) No. 312 of 2014 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 4. In the above mentioned writ petitions, the petitioner has not disclosed his right, title and interest over the land involved in W.P. (C) No. 312 of 2014 and W.P. (C) No. 310 of 2014. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has claimed compensation with respect to different plots and therefore, three different writ petitions were filed. Though, I am not satisfied with the explanation offered by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I proceed to examine the claim raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has claimed compensation with respect to different plots and therefore, three different writ petitions were filed. Though, I am not satisfied with the explanation offered by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I proceed to examine the claim raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition. The petitioner has claimed right, title and interest over 0.29 acres land under Khata No. 29 in Plot No. 523/4068 however, he has failed to disclose the nature of use by him of the said land. It is a fact recorded by the Circle Inspector in his report dated 25.10.2012 that the said land is within Maa Bhadrakali Temple premises and the petitioner is not in possession of the said land. The learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand stated that Maa Bhadrakali temple is an ancient temple. The petitioner has failed to disclose the date of dispossession and the steps taken by him after the knowledge of dispossession. The petitioner has claimed payment of rent till 2011-2012 and he asserts that he sent legal notice dated 19.07.2011 to the respondents. From the orders passed in other writ petitions, copies of which have been produced by the learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand, I find that in other writ petitions also the petitioner has failed to disclose the necessary and material facts however, since, the petitioner has claimed purchase of the land in question by his grand-father through sale-deed, I refrain from recording a finding on the issue of right, title and interest of the petitioner over the land in question. From the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 & 3, it appears that about 0.08 acres land in Khata No. 29, Khesra No. 4068 P has been acquired and an award was prepared in the name of the petitioner and his brother Promod Kr. Sinha. The petitioner has failed to disclose the said fact in the present proceeding and his brother has not been made a party in the present proceeding. The facts disclosed in the present proceeding lead to an irresistible conclusion that the claim of the petitioner cannot be adjudicated in the present proceeding and accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed.