Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1232 (JHR)

Aryan Vishwakarma v. State of Jharkhand

2018-06-14

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2018
ORDER : The present writ petition has been filed for direction upon the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner on account of acquisition of his land appertaining to Plot No. 103/9, Khata No. 53, Thana No. 120, Mouza-Masipirhi, measuring an area of 0.05 decimal acquired for widening of NH-33. Further prayer has been made to pay compensation to the petitioner under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2013’) as the award was made in the year 2011. 2. The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the father of the petitioner purchased a piece of land appertaining to Plot No. 103/9, Khata No. 53, Thana No. 120, Mouza-Masipidi measuring an area of 0.10 decimals (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said land’) through registered sale deed dated 11.06.1983. The said land was subsequently mutated in the name of the petitioner and he is paying rent to the revenue authorities regularly and a pucca house over the same has also been constructed. The said land was notified for acquisition for widening of NH-33. Award No. 27 was prepared and the petitioner was asked to receive compensation of Rs.1,65,563.71 on 27.06.2011. However, when the petitioner went to receive the same, he was not paid the compensation. He approached the respondent authorities on several occasions for payment of compensation, but all went in vein. Suddenly, the district authorities came with bulldozer and partly demolished the house of the petitioner in spite of the objection of the petitioner. The petitioner protested against the said demolition and non-payment of compensation through legal notice to the respondent authorities, however, no compensation has been paid to him as yet. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State Government has floated a scheme whereby it has been resolved that a person, who is in possession of Gair-Mazarua land for thirty years, will be paid compensation in case of dispossession. The petitioner is a rightful owner of the said land through registered sale deed and he is also paying rent, however, his house has been forcibly demolished without paying any compensation that too in violation of the principles of natural justice. The respondents have completely overlooked the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Courts in this regard. The respondents have completely overlooked the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Courts in this regard. The action of the respondents amounts to infringement of the fundamental and legal rights of the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to get compensation for his land and building under the Act, 2013 as the award was made in the year 2011, but till today the compensation has not been paid. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the said land has been recorded in the Record of Right as Gair-Mazarua Khas land and the same has vested to the State under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. The petitioner has constructed a house over it without any right, title and interest over the said land. The house of the petitioner has been demolished after giving prior notice to him. Earlier a similarly situated person, namely, Dhruv Narayan Prasad preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2119 of 2017 which was dismissed by this Court on 08.05.2017 with an observation that the respondent authorities would keep the impugned notice in abeyance for a period of 12 weeks on which raiyati status of the petitioner is declared or otherwise whichever is earlier. A contempt petition being Contempt Case (Civil) No. 595 of 2017 was also filed by Dhruv Narayan Prasad alleging non-compliance of the order, which was dropped vide order dated 21.09.2017. Thereafter, Dhruv Narayan Prasad filed Misc. Appeal No. 59 of 2015 in the Court of the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh for recognition of “raiyati manyata”, however, the said petition was rejected on 04.09.2017 and the order dated 24.04.2015 passed by the Additional Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner in Misc. Case No. 13 of 2012-13 was upheld. Since the house was built over NH-33 by encroaching the government land, the compensation under Award No. 27 was not paid to the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief even in case of the alleged possession over the Gair-Mazarua land for 30 years or more, as the said land has not been settled in favour of the petitioner by any competent authority. Thus, he is not entitled to get compensation for the said encroached land. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief even in case of the alleged possession over the Gair-Mazarua land for 30 years or more, as the said land has not been settled in favour of the petitioner by any competent authority. Thus, he is not entitled to get compensation for the said encroached land. The petitioner had suppressed the material facts due to which an erroneous award was earlier prepared, but subsequently having come to know about true facts, the compensation was not paid to the petitioner by the respondent authorities. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner has claimed compensation for acquisition of the said land on the ground that he is the lawful owner of the same. The thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner acquired raiyati interest over the said land by purchasing it through the registered sale deed. On the contrary, the respondents have claimed that the said land is a Gair-Mazarua land and the same has vested to the Government in view of the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and thus no raiyati right could be acquired over the said land. It is a settled principle of law that the purchase of any property by virtue of a registered sale deed does not create any right, title and interest of the purchaser upon the said land, if the title of the vendor was itself defective. It appears from the record that a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2119 of 2017 for a part of the land of the same Khata, was filed by one Dhruv Narayan Prasad claiming compensation for acquisition of the said land. The fact of the said case was that Dhruv Narayan Prasad had purchased the land of Khata No. 53, Plot No. 103/8, Village-Masipidi, Thana No. 120, having an area 4 decimals by virtue of a registered sale deed and mutation was also done in his favour. He was paid compensation for acquisition of the said land, however, subsequently it was detected that the said land has been recorded as Gair-Mazarua Khas and thus he was directed to refund the said compensation amount. 6. He was paid compensation for acquisition of the said land, however, subsequently it was detected that the said land has been recorded as Gair-Mazarua Khas and thus he was directed to refund the said compensation amount. 6. A Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.05.2017, disposed of the said writ petition with following observations:- “On consideration of these rival facts and the submissions of the parties, at this stage, without making any further comments on the merits of the case, it is deemed proper to dispose of the writ petition with the observations that the respondent authorities would keep the impugned notice in abeyance for a period of 12 weeks or the date on which the raiyati status of the petitioner is declared or otherwise, whichever is earlier. Depending upon the said outcome, respondents may thereafter proceed in accordance with law in the matter. Writ petition stands disposed of.” 7. The petitioner has not been able to distinguish the facts of the present case with that of the case of Dhruv Narayan Prasad (Supra). It is not the case of the petitioner that he has been recognized by the respondent-State in legal occupation of the said land. On the contrary, the contention of the State is that the award has been prepared in favour of the petitioner on furnishing wrong information by him. Under such circumstance, no direction can be issued to the respondent authorities to pay compensation to the petitioner at this stage. Although, an award was prepared in favour of the petitioner, it does not entitle him to get the compensation, if subsequently he has been found in illegal possession over the said land. 8. It is next contended on behalf of the petitioner that the State of Jharkhand has framed a policy for giving compensation to the persons who are in occupation of Gair-Mazarua land for thirty years, if they are subsequently dispossessed. However, the said contention has been denied by the respondents stating that the said land was not settled with him by any competent authority. Since the said policy has not been brought on record by the petitioner in support of his claim, this Court is not in a position to make any comment on such entitlement of the petitioner as claimed. 9. Since the said policy has not been brought on record by the petitioner in support of his claim, this Court is not in a position to make any comment on such entitlement of the petitioner as claimed. 9. Under the aforesaid circumstance, the present writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to move before the appropriate authority by filing an application for declaration of his raiyati status over the said land which shall be decided by the concerned authority within two months from the date of receipt of such application. 10. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.