Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 238 (JHR)

Azim Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

2018-01-30

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

body2018
ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. R.K. Gupta, counsel appears for the petitioners, Mr. R.K. Mahatha, counsel for the respondent no. 5 and Mr. Ravi Kumar, J.C. to S.C. II, counsel for the respondent-State. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioners challenging the following orders:- (a) Revisional order dated 26.02.2001 (Annexure-6) passed by the respondent no. 2 in Lohardaga S.A.R. Revision No. 122/92, (b) Appellate order dated 10.04.1992 (Annexure-5) passed by the respondent no. 3 in S.A.R. Appeal No. 16R 15/ 90-91 and (c) order dated 13.02.1991 (Annexure-4) passed by the respondent no. 4 in S.A.R. case No. 19/88-89. 3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the S.A.R. No. 19/88-89 was filed by the petitioner (respondent no. 5 herein) for restoration of land under section 71 A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. He further submits that application for restoration was allowed and a compensation of Rs. 3,040/- was fixed by the court vide order dated 13.02.1991 directing the respondent no. 5 to make payment to present petitioner of this case. Against the order dated 13.02.1991 passed in S.A.R. Case No. 19/88-89 the respondent no. 5 filed an appeal before the appellant authority which was numbered as S.A.R. appeal no. 16 R 15/ 90-91. The grievance of the respondent no. 5 before the appellate court was that the amount of compensation of Rs. 3040/- was not legally payable by the respondent no. 5 to the petitioner. The appellate court allowed the S.A.R. appeal filed by the respondent no. 5 and direction for payment of compensation of Rs. 3040/- was set aside by the appellate court. Against this order the writ petitioner filed Lohardaga S.A.R. Revision No. 122/92 which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 26.02.2001. 4. Counsel for the petitioner while referring to the findings recorded in order dated 26.02.2001, submitted that the order of restoration of land which was passed by the respondent no. 4 in S.A.R. case No. 19/88-89 vide order dated 13.02.1991 was itself incorrect and he further submits that the revisional court ought to have at least considered the fact that the petitioner is entitled for compensation which has already been passed vide order dated 13.02.1991. 5. 4 in S.A.R. case No. 19/88-89 vide order dated 13.02.1991 was itself incorrect and he further submits that the revisional court ought to have at least considered the fact that the petitioner is entitled for compensation which has already been passed vide order dated 13.02.1991. 5. Counsel for the respondents submits that the writ petitioner did not challenge the order of restoration of land dated 13.02.1991, he cannot be permitted to challenge the order of restoration before this Hon'ble Court for the first time.. But so far as the order of compensation is concerned he does not have any objection if the original order of compensation amounting to Rs. 3040/- is upheld and he undertaken to make payment of compensation amount within two months. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after hearing the counsel for the parties, I am inclined to allow the writ petition to the extent it relates to payment of compensation to the writ petitioner only. Accordingly, the writ petitioner is partly allowed to the extent indicated on account of following facts and reasons:- (a) Admittedly, the order of restoration of land dated 13.02.1991 was never challenged by the writ petitioner and it was only the respondent no. 5 who challenged the order dated 13.02.1991, to the extent it related to grant of compensation. Therefore, it is not open for the petitioner to assail the order of restoration of land passed as back as on 13.02.1991 for the first time by filing writ petition that too after a period of 10 years from the date of the order. Moreover, there is no explanation on record as to why to order of restoration dated 13.02.1991 was not challenged by the writ petitioner before the appellate authority. (b) So far as the compensation part is concerned counsel for the respondent has already agreed to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 3040/- to the writ petitioner within the period of two months from today. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26.02.1991 passed by the revisional court is hereby modified only to the extent that the private respondent will pay Rs. 3040/- to the petitioner being the compensation amount as fixed by the original Court within the period of two months from today. 8. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26.02.1991 passed by the revisional court is hereby modified only to the extent that the private respondent will pay Rs. 3040/- to the petitioner being the compensation amount as fixed by the original Court within the period of two months from today. 8. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount of compensation which was fixed as back in the year 1991 is not equitable and at least the interest on the same should have been granted to the petitioner under equitable jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. Considering the facts that the respondent has agreed to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 3040/- as per the order of the original authority and the writ petitioner has not challenged the quantum of compensation in the writ petition. Moreover as the order of restoration has been passed in favour of the private respondent, the property is apparently being enjoyed by the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant any further relief to the writ petitioner. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts, the present writ petition is partly allowed.