Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 87 (JHR)

Sardar Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand

2017-01-11

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2017
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In the first four cases i.e. W.P.C. No. 5749 of 2012, W.P.C. No. 5732 of 2012, W.P.C. No. 8041 of 2012 and W.P.C. No. 1719 of 2013, the acquisition proceedings invoking the emergency clause under the Act of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, undertaken for the purpose of the Respondent Company, Usha Martin Limited (UML) were under challenge by the petitioners who are land owners/society of land owners of 7 such villages comprising total area of 1217.5030 Acres. By the interim order passed during the pendency of the writ application and L.P.A. No. 114 of 2014 and analogous cases, status quo qua the possession was ordered to be maintained. The possession of the rayati land under acquisition were therefore not taken by the State nor delivered to the Company. The matters remained pending thereafter. It is also worthwhile to mention here that these acquisitions were being undertaken at the request of the Respondent-UML, which had been allotted Kathautia Coal Block Mines by the Ministry of Coal, Government of India on 29.9.2003. The Respondent UML claims to have also deposited Rs. 24 Crores 75 Lakhs and odd towards 80% of the estimated cost with the District Land Acquisition Officer, Palamau for invoking the emergency clause. A total amount of Rs.105.44 Crores was deposited with the District Land Acquisition Officer, Palamau by the UML towards the acquisition. As a result of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma Vrs. Principal Secretary & others in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.120 of 2012 reported in (2014) 9 SCC 516 and (2014) 9 SCC 614 , coal block of several such allottees including the petitioners were cancelled. The coal blocks were made open for allotment through auction route. On 1.4.2015 it was allotted to M/s Hindalco Industries Limited (HIL). The Respondent, UML therefore had no stake in the acquisition except seeking refund of the amount deposited towards acquisition. 3. Learned counsel for the Respondent UML submits that in case of refund upon de-notification of the acquisition, it would also be entitled to claim interest thereupon. 4. On 1.4.2015 it was allotted to M/s Hindalco Industries Limited (HIL). The Respondent, UML therefore had no stake in the acquisition except seeking refund of the amount deposited towards acquisition. 3. Learned counsel for the Respondent UML submits that in case of refund upon de-notification of the acquisition, it would also be entitled to claim interest thereupon. 4. W.P.C. No. 6886 of 2016 and other analogous cases were filed in the year 2016 with a common prayer to direct the State Government to take decision on their representations for de-notification of the land under acquisition in terms of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, i.e., Section 93(1) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation & Re-settlement Act, 2013. By the order dated 6.12.2016 this Court directed W.P.C. No. 5749 of 2012, W.P.C. No. 5732 of 2012 , W.P.C. No. 8041 of 2012 and W.P.C. No. 1719 of 2013 to be tagged along with these batch of cases. The writ petitions filed in 2016 related to 2 village namely Sika and Kathautia, those filed in 2017 related to village Kajri and Sakui, all of which within the 7 villages under acquisition. 5. Learned Advocate General representing Respondent State sought time to take instructions. Thereafter the matter has been posted today. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State, Respondent-UML as well as the new allottee, Respondent-M/s Hindalco Industries Limited. Learned Advocate General refers to the statement made at para 7 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, which is quoted herein after:- “That it is stated that the respondent nos. 1 to 4 beg to submit and state that they are ready to pass order u/s 48 of the Land Acquisition Act so as to facilitate smooth working of mining work in accordance with law by the allotted Company – respondent no. 5.” 6. Learned Advocate General submits that since issue is common in respect of all 7 villages under acquisition, stand of the State would be uniform as referred in para 7 quoted hereinabove. The acquisition proceedings could not be completed on account of the interim order passed in some of the writ petitions, as a result possession could not be taken by the State in favour of the Respondent- UML. 7. Learned counsel for the Respondent-HIL submits that the company, subsequent allottee, is not interested in acquisition process. The acquisition proceedings could not be completed on account of the interim order passed in some of the writ petitions, as a result possession could not be taken by the State in favour of the Respondent- UML. 7. Learned counsel for the Respondent-HIL submits that the company, subsequent allottee, is not interested in acquisition process. Individual villagers of some of these villages have approached this Company for conveyance of the right, title, ownership and possession over their raiyati lands in favour of the Company through individual Memorandum of Understanding with a stipulation that instrument of sale could be executed once the acquisition is de-notified. 8. Learned counsel for the Respondent-UML, Mr. Vikash Singh submits that on account of de-allocation of the coal block, the Company does not have any stake in the acquisition proceedings now except to seek refund of the amount deposited with the land acquisition authorities along with interest. Learned counsel has further submitted that this Court may in the circumstances quash the acquisition proceedings itself or direct the Respondent State Government to take decision on the de-notification of the land under acquisition within strict time frame. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.C. No. 5749 of 2012, W.P.C. No. 5732 of 2012, W.P.C. No. 8041 of 2012 and W.P.C. No. 1719 of 2013 filed initially challenging the acquisition proceedings submits that a uniform stand should be taken by the Respondent State in respect of all the 7 villages so that individual villagers may not be discriminated. 10. I have taken note of the submission of the parties in the light of relevant material facts noticed herein above. On consideration of the aforesaid facts and submission of the parties, it emerges that the original allottee upon de-allocation of the coal block has on account of the turn of events lost any stake in the acquisition proceedings except seeking refund of the amount deposited in lieu thereof apart from any other claim of interest. The new allottee M/s HIL in order to commence mining operation has entered into Memorandum of Understanding with villagers of few of the villages. As has been indicated by learned Advocate General on behalf of the State, the State is inclined to take a uniform decision in the matter of de-notification of land, i.e., subject matter of acquisition proceedings. 11. The new allottee M/s HIL in order to commence mining operation has entered into Memorandum of Understanding with villagers of few of the villages. As has been indicated by learned Advocate General on behalf of the State, the State is inclined to take a uniform decision in the matter of de-notification of land, i.e., subject matter of acquisition proceedings. 11. In that view of the matter, all these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the State Government to take a decision on the representation of such land holders/petitioners on the issue of de-notification of land under acquisition within a strict time frame preferably within period of 8 week from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Pending I.A.s are also closed.