Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 883 (JHR)

Chandra Shekhar Nath Ganjhu v. State of Jharkhand

2015-07-29

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2015
Order : Challenging notification dated 23.12.2006 published in the daily newspaper namely, “Prabhat Khabar” on 11.01.2007, the present writ petition has been filed. Subsequently, I.A. No. 2455 of 2012 was filed seeking quashing of communication dated 27.07.2012 and the said application was allowed vide order dated 11.09.2012. 2. The petitioner claiming himself descendant of one Bahor Ram Ganjhu asserts that he is unemployed and his only source of livelihood is land which has been acquired through notification dated 23.12.2006. It is stated that the ancestors of the petitioner donated land for Police Station, Dharamshala, S.S. High School and Hostel and now, the petitioner and other co-sharers have been left with no other land except, the land notified vide notification dated 23.12.2006. The petitioner when came to know about the aforesaid proposal for acquisition, approached the Sub-Divisional Officer, Khunti on 28.10.2005 objecting to the proposed acquisition however, the same was not considered and suddenly, notification dated 23.12.2006 was published in the newspaper on 11.01.2007. Subsequently, a notice was published in the newspaper on 27.07.2012 directing the petitioner to receive compensation. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Mr. V. Shivnath, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that by not considering the objection of the petitioner and invoking the emergency provision under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the respondents have deprived the petitioner of his valuable right under Section 5A of the Act. Though, there are Government/Gair Mazurwa land in the vicinity however, the respondents have arbitrarily taken a decision to acquire 2.54 acres land comprised in Thana No. 90, village-Namkum, P.S.Khunti. Referring to decision in “Raghbir Singh Sehrawat Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.” (2012) 1 SCC 792 , it is contended that the State before acquiring private land is under a duty to acquire its own land, first, so that the valuable cultural and hereditary rights of the land owners can be preserved. It is stated that the respondent-authorities without taking note of the fact that the proposed land is about 3.5 kms. away from Khunti and there is already a bus stand existing in the Khunti Town, have taken a decision to acquire the land belonging to the petitioner which cannot be sustained in law. 4. Opposing the prayer in the writ petition, Mr. away from Khunti and there is already a bus stand existing in the Khunti Town, have taken a decision to acquire the land belonging to the petitioner which cannot be sustained in law. 4. Opposing the prayer in the writ petition, Mr. V.K. Prasad, the learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand submits that construction of a bus stand would be for public purpose, cannot be denied. Referring to approvals granted by different departments of the Government, the learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand submits that the Government took a conscious decision to construct a hitech bus stand at Khunti and therefore, the subjective satisfaction of the Government to acquire the land in question is not open to judicial review. The learned counsel refers to and relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “First Land Acquisition Collector & Ors. Vs. Nirodhi Prakash Gangoli & Anr.” (2002) 4 SCC 160 . It is stated that recently a new District of Khunti has been created and thus, construction of a new bus stand would serve the general public. It is submitted that after the award was prepared on 10.01.2009, notices were issued to the petitioner however, the petitioner declined to receive compensation and therefore, notice dated 27.07.2012 was published in the daily newspaper. It is further submitted that there is no challenge to the award dated 10.01.2009 though, the petitioner has challenged notification dated 23.12.2006 under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 5. In reply, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that notice dated 27.07.2012 in the daily newspaper is a conclusive proof of the fact that compensation has not been paid to the petitioner and therefore, in view of Section 24(4) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency under Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the acquisition shall be deemed to have lapsed. Referring to judgment in “Patasi Devi Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.” (2012) 9 SCC 503 , the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that even after more than 5 years, the land acquired through notification dated 23.12.2006 has not been utilised for construction and the petitioner is in possession of the same and therefore, the acquisition must be declared to have lapsed. 6. I have carefully considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties and perused the documents on record. 7. 6. I have carefully considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties and perused the documents on record. 7. In so far as, challenge to notification dated 23.12.2006 is concerned, the petitioner has contended that he submitted representation dated 28.10.2005 to the Sub-Divisional Officer objecting to the proposed acquisition. In the objection dated 28.10.2005, the petitioner has given a description of the land which should have been acquired by the State Government. The description given in the said objection discloses land situated between Khunti Police Station and Post Office, land situated between pond and house of one Lakhna Mahto, land at Pipra Toli Garden etc. The respondents have taken a plea that other lands available were not suitable for construction of a hitech bus stand. The report dated 16.01.2008 of the Circle Officer discloses that the alternative plots suggested by the petitioner were not suitable and there was no other Gair Majurwa land which is not under dispute. The respondents have stated in the supplementary counter-affidavit that for construction of a bus stand in the District of Khunti, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi requisitioned land through letter dated 13.06.2006 and the Government granted sanction to the draft notification and declaration on 23.12.2006. The notification and declaration were published in the local newspaper on 22.01.2007 and it was published in Zila Gazette on 07.03.2007. It is asserted that acquisition of land pertaining to Plot No. 42, Khata No. 21, total area of 2.54 acres was sanctioned by Revenue Department vide letter dated 04.07.2007. The respondents have raised a plea that the subjective satisfaction of the Government is not open to judicial review. It appears that notices were issued under Section 9 to the petitioner and the petitioner received the same on 01.08.2007. The award was prepared on 10.01.2009 and thereafter, notices under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued to the petitioner. As noticed above, since the petitioner declined to receive compensation, a notice was issued in the daily newspaper on 27.07.2012. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the fact that the compensation to the petitioner has not been paid, the acquisition has lapsed, is liable to be rejected. The petitioner who has declined to receive compensation cannot contend that compensation has not been paid to him and therefore, the acquisition would lapse. Reliance on decision in “Patasi Devi Vs. The petitioner who has declined to receive compensation cannot contend that compensation has not been paid to him and therefore, the acquisition would lapse. Reliance on decision in “Patasi Devi Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.” (supra) is thus, misplaced. In so far as, possession of the land in question is concerned, the respondents have asserted that they have taken possession of the land. It has further been disclosed that subsequently, a new District of Khunti has been created. The respondents have asserted that the proposed land is situated at a convenient place for construction of the bus stand. I am of the opinion that the objection dated 28.10.2005 stands rejected in the face of notification dated 23.12.2006. The contention that without initiating a proceeding for cancellation of Jamabandi with respect to the land mentioned in the report dated 16.01.2008 of the Circle Officer, the land in question should not have been acquired is misconceived. The petitioner cannot have a grievance if, without cancelling the Jamabandi for other lands, the State has decided to pay compensation to him. The construction of proposed hitech bus stand cannot be put on hold awaiting the outcome of an anticipated litigation. 8. Considering the above facts, I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.