Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2083 (JHR)

Sunil Oraon v. State of Jharkhand

2017-12-04

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2017
ORDER : No one appears on behalf of the petitioners. 2. In all the writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for declaration that the land acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in relation to Land Acquisition Case Nos. 6/6061, 17/6162, 20/5859, 48/5859 and 11/8384 deemed to have lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency under Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The petitioners have further prayed for direction upon the respondents to release and relinquish the land of the petitioners which have been acquired by the State Government for the establishment of the Heavy Engineering Corporation. 3. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the raiyati land of several villages within the District of Ranchi were acquired for the Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. (in short HEC) Hatia, Ranchi in the year 1959-60 for construction and establishment of Foundry Forge Plant, Heavy Machine Building Plant, Heavy Machine Tools Plant, Township of Hatia and other ancillary and allied purposes. The Special Secretary, Government of Bihar vide letter no. 122 D.L.A Niti 1/78 dated 12.01.1979 issued a letter to all the district collectorate relating to the land which were acquired but were not in use or in surplus so that surplus land may be relinquished to the real raiyats. Thereafter, several correspondence were made between the HEC and State Government and vide letter dated 21.11.1992 the Deputy Commissioner Ranchi wrote to the District Land Acquisition Officer Ranchi to verify the land acquired for the purpose of HEC so that the surplus land could be denotified. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi vide letter dated 13.07.1993 reported to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi that 2555.79 acres of land were found unutilized. However, the respondents delayed the process of release of the land in favour of the raiyats including the petitioners. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi vide letter dated 13.07.1993 reported to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi that 2555.79 acres of land were found unutilized. However, the respondents delayed the process of release of the land in favour of the raiyats including the petitioners. In the meantime, The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short Act, 1894) got repealed and The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and ReSettlement Act, 2013 (in short Act, 2013) came into force wherein a provision has been made that the land which has been acquired and award has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of the Act but the physical possession has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid by the Government, the said proceeding shall be deemed to have lapsed and the government may initiate fresh proceeding. The HEC transferred 2342 acres of land by way of deed of conveyance as relinquishment on 14.03.2015 out of which 1092.64 acres of land are raiyati land. It is the claim of the petitioners that the land were acquired in surplus and as such the possession of the land of the petitioners was not taken and they were in possession of their land, but recently in the year 2013, the respondents have forcefully taken some of these land from the possession of the petitioners and have also constructed the boundary wall. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand as well as the HEC while referring to order dated 01.08.2016 passed by a Bench of this Court in batch of writ petitions being W.P.(C) No. 2378 of 2014 (Rahul Oraon & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand) and other analogous cases, submits that similar writ petitions were dismissed primarily due to the reason that neither any notification of acquisition nor any relevant proceeding of the land acquisition cases were brought on record by the petitioners in support of their contentions raised in the said writ petitions. It is further submitted that the present writ petitioners have also not brought on record any such documents in support of their contentions raised in these writ petitions. 5. It is further submitted that the present writ petitioners have also not brought on record any such documents in support of their contentions raised in these writ petitions. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the respondents and after going through the relevant documents available on record I find that the petitioners have not brought on record the vital documents i.e., the notification of acquisition, the relevant part of the proceedings of the land acquisition cases etc. in support of the averments made in the writ petitions seeking relief as prayed. 6. On perusal of the order passed by a Bench of this Court in the case of “Roshan Oraon Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.” (W.P.C No. 2378 of 2014) and other analogous cases, it appears that in those cases also the petitioners had made similar prayer with regard to the land acquisition proceeding of the year 1960-61 for the establishment of HEC and prayed for denotifying the acquired land. Paragraph no. 4 of the said order reads as under: “4. As a matter of fact, neither is the Notification of acquisition on record, nor are the relevant proceedings of the Land Acquisition Cases on record to support the averments in the writ petitions for the aforesaid relief. That was the reason for the petitioners to seek adjournment for supplementing their averments by cogent and convincing documents. On the previous date also, taking note of insufficient pleadings and supporting cogent and convincing documents, matter was adjourned by way of last indulgence. Petitioners have not been able to file such affidavit along with supporting documents. The very issue therefore cannot be effectively examined in the present state of pleadings in these matters. Therefore, writ petitions are being dismissed with a liberty to the petitioners to approach the Court with all relevant facts, pleadings and material particulars along with supporting documents.” 7. Considering the aforesaid situation, the issue raised by the petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions cannot be effectively examined/adjudicated particularly for want of important documents relating to the earlier acquisition proceeding of the land. 8. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach this Court with all relevant documents and pleadings in support of their prayer.