Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 408 (JHR)

Pancham Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2015-03-25

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2015
JUDGMENT SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. 1. Seeking a direction to the respondents to initiate a land acquisition proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and to pay compensation based on present market value alongwith, solatium and interest to the petitioners, the present writ petition has been filed. Further prayers seeking a direction to the respondents to remove the illegal construction of Electric Power Substation from the land of the petitioners and to deliver the possession to the petitioners, have also been made in the present writ petition. 2. The petitioners claiming themselves owner of land measuring 0.23 acres in Plot No. 164 and about 0.90 acres in Plot No. 172 under Khata No. 34 in Village Huppu, Thana No. 18, P.S. Gola, District-Ramgarh, claims that without acquiring the said land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and without paying compensation to the petitioners/their ancestors, the Jharkhand State Electricity Board has constructed a Power Substation over their lands. In para 12 of the writ petition, it is stated that the Jharkhand State Electricity Board about 10 years ago, without consent of the petitioners and without paying compensation, constructed Electric Power Substation over their lands. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent nos. 3, 5 and 6 stating that possession of the land in question measuring about 2.80 acres in Village Huppu, Thana No. 18, P.S. Gola, District-Hazaribagh was given to the Bihar State Electricity Board, about 50 years back and an Electric Power Substation was constructed over there. Over the said land quarters for staff were also constructed. The statements made by the petitioners have been denied and it is disputed that the respondents are in possession for the last 10 years only. It is stated that in the record of Survey and Settlement Department, Hazaribagh, it is recorded that the Power Substation is situated over the land in question. The power map of Bihar (DRG No. 11972) clearly shows that the 33/11KV Power Substation, Gola was constructed before March, 1971. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. Mr. The power map of Bihar (DRG No. 11972) clearly shows that the 33/11KV Power Substation, Gola was constructed before March, 1971. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. Mr. V. Shivnath, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners refers to the averment in para 12 of the writ petition and submits that it has not been denied by the respondents that the land in question has not been acquired and it was handed over to the Electricity Board without following the procedure of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Neither the averment with respect to payment of no compensation to the petitioners nor the assertion that the consent of the petitioners was not taken, have been denied in the writ petition and thus, the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners for their land. It is further submitted that the only stand taken by the respondents is that they are in possession over the land in question for the last 50 years however, they have not disclosed how the said land has been acquired. It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that entries in the revenue record are not final and it is not the evidence of title of the respondents. 6. As against the above, the learned counsel for the respondents refuted the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners and submits that in view of the fact that the Power Substation at Gola was constructed on or before March, 1971, the prayer made by the petitioners in the present writ petition cannot be granted. Reiterating the stand taken in the counter-affidavit, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners have not explained the delay in approaching this Court and they have made false statement in the present writ petition. 7. After having carefully considered the rival submissions raised on behalf of the parties and after perusing the documents on record, I am of the opinion that the prayer made in the writ petition cannot be granted. In the present proceeding, the petitioners have sought compensation on the ground that they are the owners of land in question however, the respondents have stated that the possession of the land in question was given to the Bihar State Electricity Board about 50 years back. In the present proceeding, the petitioners have sought compensation on the ground that they are the owners of land in question however, the respondents have stated that the possession of the land in question was given to the Bihar State Electricity Board about 50 years back. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that since it has not been specifically averred by the respondents how they came in possession of the land in question, ownership of the petitioners over the land in question must be held to have been admitted by the petitioners, merits no acceptance. In the first place, the petitioners are required to establish their right, title and interest in the land in question. The petitioners have produced copies of land receipts and Khatian to stake their claim over the land in question. On the other hand, the respondents have also contended that in the record of the Survey and Settlement Department, Hazaribagh over the land in question, the Power Substation at Gola is recorded. In view of the disputed claim of title involved in the present writ petition, it cannot be held that the petitioners are the owners of the lands in question. Now, it has been brought on record that the Power Substation at Gola is recorded in the record of the Survey and Settlement Department and the Power Substation was constructed on or before March, 1971, the petitioners have not explained the reasons for not objecting to the construction of the Power Substation about 40 years back. It is not disclosed whether they made any representation to the then State of Bihar or not. There is unexplained delay of 40 years in approaching the Court by the petitioners. Neither the Bihar State Electricity Board nor the State of Bihar have been impleaded as party-respondent in the present proceeding. The petitioners have prayed for a direction to the respondents to initiate a land acquisition proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. I am of the opinion that no such direction can be issued to the respondents to initiate a land acquisition proceeding. Insofar as, prayer to pay compensation on the present market value is concerned, I am of the opinion that the petitioners can seek compensation etc. only after establishing their title through a decree of the court. 8. I am of the opinion that no such direction can be issued to the respondents to initiate a land acquisition proceeding. Insofar as, prayer to pay compensation on the present market value is concerned, I am of the opinion that the petitioners can seek compensation etc. only after establishing their title through a decree of the court. 8. In the above view of the matter, I find no merit and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.