Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 75 (JHR)

Bramhpado Gorai v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-01-10

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT Mr. Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court for directing the Respondents to pay compensation amount of the land comprised in Plot no. 578,579,577 and 858 of Mauza Gadi Koria, Jamabandi No. 38 and 39 under Circle and District Dumka. The acquisition was made for construction of Gobindpur-Sahebganj Road. Petitioner has also made a prayer for release of some land, which was not required for construction of the said road stating that in Plot No. 577,578 and 579 petitioner has constructed his house. Petitioner has also made a prayer to dispose of his representation filed on 18.8.2012 and 27.8.2013 raising such grievances. 3. As per the petitioner, the compensation in lieu of the land acquired should have been assessed at Rs.11,98,000/- instead of the awarded amount of Rs.8,94,669/- as per the award dated 3.12.2010. Petitioner claims to have sought details of the calculation from the office of District Land Acquisition Officer, Dumka vide Annexure-8 to the supplementary affidavit dated 22.12.2010. The application at Annexure-5 is dated 18.8.2012 seeking consideration of payment of compensation as per the measurement made by the authorities. This application however is beyond the time limit stipulated in terms of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 seeking reference by an objector. 4. According to learned counsel for the Respondent State, so far as compensation amount of Rs. 8,94,669 under Award No. 28 is concerned in respect of building plot no. 578 and 579, it has been paid to the petitioner. Compensation amount of Rs.70,490/- has also been paid in respect of Award no.31 for the boundary wall of plot no. 578 and 579 to Chanda Devi, W/o Rabindra Prasad Sah and Meera Devi, W/o Nandlal Sah. So far as compensation amount involved in Award No. 25 and 25/A of the acquisition of plot no. 578 and 579 is concerned, the same were deposited in Treasury in view of the dispute between the co-sharer and claimant. Respondents contend that one Deonath Mandal has been paid compensation of Rs.2,80,619 in respect of Award No. 30 in respect of Plot No. 578. Therefore the entire compensation amount for the building and boundary wall has already been paid to claimants and only the compensation amount for the land has been deposited in Dumka District Treasury in view of the dispute between the cosharer. Therefore the entire compensation amount for the building and boundary wall has already been paid to claimants and only the compensation amount for the land has been deposited in Dumka District Treasury in view of the dispute between the cosharer. With regard to the contention of the petitioner that his land is Basauri in nature, it is contended by the Respondents that the land has been recorded as Mokrari. As per the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949 and Gantzer Survey Report, the land is nontransferable and the Circle Officer, Dumka has also reported likewise vide letter dated 22.9.2014. It is contended that new rate of acquisition in respect of acquisition of 2009-10 cannot be applicable in the facts of the present case. Learned counsel for the Respondents has on these facts defended the stand of the Respondents. 5. From the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner also it transpires that pursuant to the receipt of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act of 1894 directing him to appear on 30.11.2010 for receipt of compensation of Rs. 8,94,669 in respect of the acquired property, petitioner did accept the cheque of the said amount. Any objection on the question of enhancement of compensation however is to be made within the time prescribed under the provisions of section 18 of the Act of 1894 for seeking reference there under. The time limit prescribed under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 is not open for extension by condonation of delay in making such application. Reference may be made to the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Laxuman reported in 2005(8) SCC 709 . 6. Therefore, in the light of the pleadings noticed herein above when the petitioner has admittedly failed to make any application for enhancement of compensation within the prescribed time limit under Section 18 of the Act of 1894, no relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be granted to him as prayed for, as it would be contrary to the statutory scheme. 7. In that view of the matter, the writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.