Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1859 (JHR)

Butah Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2017-11-03

AMITAV K.GUPTA, DHIRUBHAI NARANBHAI PATEL

body2017
JUDGMENT : Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellant (original petitioner) whose writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 5708 of 2013 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge and the prayer for referring the claim of this appellant under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was not accepted by the learned Single Judge. The land was acquired in the year 1987-88 and under the Land Acquisition Case No. 1 of 1987-88, the compensation was also paid to the holder of the property and for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the petition which was preferred by this appellant was dismissed and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the land in question is Khata No. 11, Thana No. 16 within Plot Nos. 97 & 98 admeasuring 3.09 acres. 2. This land was recorded in the name of Uttam Mahto. The land was acquired for Central Coal Fields Limited-Central Government Undertaking. Necessary notices were given under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and ultimately the compensation was awarded at Rs. 56,457.53/- in favour of the son of Uttam Mahto and two sons of Chamna Mahto through their mother and natural guardian Chamni Mahtawain. 3. It further appears that the compensation awarded in Land Acquisition Case No. 1 of 1987-88 was accepted on 5.11.1987 under protest. 4. It further appears that for referring the matter under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 an application was preferred on 16th May, 1987 before respondent no. 2 for getting more compensation. As the reference was not made, the writ was preferred after 25 long 'years being W.P.(C) No. 5708 of 2013. 5. It appears that there is a long delay in preferring the writ petition of approximately a quarter of century. "Law helps those who are vigilant". It appears that the petitioner has not taken any care of his application from 1987 till the writ petition is being preferred in the year 2013. After such a long lapse of time, no reference can be made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Some of the original claimants have also expired as stated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition. After such a long lapse of time, no reference can be made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Some of the original claimants have also expired as stated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition. No error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in deciding the W.P.(C) No. 5708 of 2013. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has relied upon the decision rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mangat Ram Tanwar v. Union of India reported in 1991 SC 1080. Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case that:- (a) In the Land Acquisition Case No. 1 of 1987-88, the compensation has already been paid to the original owners of Rs. 56,457.53/-. (b) The application dated 16th May, 1987 was never persuaded by these appellants for 25 long years. It was the duty of these appellants to pursue the matter for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Looking to Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, nothing is so mechanical that even if, the claim is reasonably assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the matter has to be referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Such type of mechanical approach is never accepted from the respondents, unless the applicant is pursuing his case before the concerned authority for making reference under Section 18 and such persuasion will be a prima facie persuasion like dispute is to be referred under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Labour Court or Industrial Court. Neither under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the reference making process is mechanical, nor under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the reference making process is mechanical. It is bound to have some accountable action to be taken by these appellants. They have not persuaded their case for 25 long years and hence, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant. There is no explanation for causing such delay in approaching the Court. There is long unexplained delay on the part of this appellant. They have not persuaded their case for 25 long years and hence, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant. There is no explanation for causing such delay in approaching the Court. There is long unexplained delay on the part of this appellant. Before making reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, prima facie, it appears that the claimant has to convince the respondent authority on the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. That compensation awarded is inadequate may be because of the wrong measurement of the land acquired or the wrong calculation of the compensation etc. Section 18 never prescribes that no sooner did, slightest objection is raised for lesser amount of compensation paid and mechanically the reference should be made. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, while dismissing W.P.(C) No. 5708 of 2013 vide order dated 22.6.2015. Hence, there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.