Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1950 (JHR)

Janak Singh Munda v. State of Jharkhand

2017-11-14

AMITAV K.GUPTA, DHIRUBHAI NARANBHAI PATEL

body2017
ORDER : Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J. I.A. No. 7011 of 2016 1. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 34 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the reasons stated in this interlocutory application, especially in paragraph no. 2, there are reasonable reasons for condonation of delay. We, therefore, condone the delay of 34 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. I.A. No. 7011 of 2016 stands allowed and disposed of. L.P.A No. 500 of 2016 3. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioners. whose writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 4563 of 2014 has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 1.8.2016, whereby the claim of interest upon the principal amount of compensation for land acquisition was not accepted by the learned Single Judge-hence this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioners. 4. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the land in question was to be acquired by the Government under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for the sake of brevity here-in-after referred to as the 'Act, 1894') and notification was published initially on 10.12.1987. The said land acquisition proceedings could not be completed within the stipulated time, and hence, the same was lapsed. 5. Again, the land acquisition proceedings were initiated under Section 4 of the Act, 1894, and notification was published, but the same was again lapsed. 6. Third time, land acquisition proceedings were initiated and the notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 was published on 31.7.2003, and ultimately award was passed and compensation at Rs. 15,47,780/- was awarded to the land holders-original petitioners-appellants, which has been accepted also by these appellants. 7. Now, writ petition has been preferred by these appellants being W.P.(C) No. 4563 of 2014 for getting interest upon the principal amount at Rs. 15,47,780/- mainly for the reason that initially notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 was published on 10.12.1987, and hence interest should be paid from the year 1988. 7. Now, writ petition has been preferred by these appellants being W.P.(C) No. 4563 of 2014 for getting interest upon the principal amount at Rs. 15,47,780/- mainly for the reason that initially notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 was published on 10.12.1987, and hence interest should be paid from the year 1988. This contention is not accepted by this Court mainly for the reasons that:- (a) Section 4 Notification is one thing and taking over of possession is altogether another; (b) Even though the notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 was published, usage of the land is permissible by the holder of the land. (c) As per Section 16 of the Act, 1894 only after the award is passed under Section 11 of the Act, 1894, possession can be taken over by the Government in normal condition with an exception as carved out under Section 17 of the Act, 1894, and the appellants (original petitioners) could not point out whether provision of Section 17 of the Act, 1894 was invoked by the Government at the relevant time in the year 1987 or not. 8. In view of the aforesaid reasons, these appellants (original petitioners) could not establish the fact that the possession of the land in question was taken over by the Government by invoking provision of Section 17 of the Act, 1894. 9. The aforesaid aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the claim of interest upon the principal amount of the compensation of these appellants, and we see no reasons to take any other view than what has been taken by the learned Single Judge. No error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 4563 of 2014 vide order dated 1.8.2016. We are in full agreement with the reasons given by the learned Single Judge. There is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.