Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2488 (JHR)

Ramdeo Prasad Kushwaha v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-11-05

AMITAV K.GUPTA, D.N.PATEL

body2018
JUDGMENT D. N. Patel, J. - This Letters Patent Appeal was disposed of vide order dated 3rd January, 2018, but, the concerned stenographer could not find the papers of the Letters Patent Appeal and, hence, he placed the typed order before us in the last week and, hence, this matter was ordered to be listed today. 2. It ought to be kept in mind by the Registry of this Court that some methodology ought to be evolved so that whenever stenographer is taking dictation, there should be inbuilt checking mechanism that which order is signed by the Judges and thereafter which order is uploaded. Either some register should be opened by the stenographer or on computer they can make separate folder. We, therefore, direct the Registry of this Court to place the matter before Hon''ble the Chief Justice for taking appropriate decision on administrative side, both procedure wise as well as for the departmental action, which shall be initiated against any of the erring officer(s) of this Court. 3. Following order was passed on 3rd January, 2018 in L.P.A. No. 670 of 2015: "IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 670 of 2015 ----- 1. Ramdeo Prasad Kushwaha, S/o Late Baijnath Mahto 2. Sahdeo Prasad Kushwaha, S/o Todi Narayan Mahto 3. Yogeshwar Prasad Kushwaha, S/o Late Meglal Mahto All resident of village-Naiyadih via Mirjaganj, P.O.-Kurhebindo, P.S. Jamua, District-Giridih. .... Petitioners/Appellants Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Dy. Commissioner, Giridih, P.O. + P.S.-Giridih, District-Giridih. 3. Block Development Officer, Jamua, P.O. + P.S.- Jamua, DistrictGiridih. 4. The Circle Officer, P.O. + P.S.-Jamua, District Giridih. 5. Mukhiya, Kurhebindo Gram Panchaiyat, P.S.-Jamua, P.O. Kurhebindo, District-Giridih. 6. Naresh Turi, S/o Sri Hemlal Turi, R/o village-Kurhebindo, P.O. Kurhebindo, P.S. Jamua, District Giridih. . ..... Respondents/Respondents ----- CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA For the Appellants : M/s Sudarshan Srivastava, M.B. Lal & Sunil Kumar, Advocates For the State : Mr. Vikash Kishore Prasad, S.C.(L&C) ----- 10/Dated: 3rd January, 2018 Oral order: Per D.N. Patel, A.C.J.: 1. . ..... Respondents/Respondents ----- CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA For the Appellants : M/s Sudarshan Srivastava, M.B. Lal & Sunil Kumar, Advocates For the State : Mr. Vikash Kishore Prasad, S.C.(L&C) ----- 10/Dated: 3rd January, 2018 Oral order: Per D.N. Patel, A.C.J.: 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioners being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 6946 of 2013, judgment and order dated 05.10.2015 whereby, the petition of these appellants for awarding compensation for the land acquired for the construction of road has not been accepted by the learned Single Judge and hence, the original petitioners have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that these appellants are original petitioners who have alleged that they are owners of the following plot numbers, which were purchased through three different registered sale deeds:- (i) 1597; (ii) 1598; (iii) 1599; (iv) 1620; (v) 1624; (vi) 1625; (vii) 1601; (viii) 1614; (ix) 1630; (x) 2162 and (xi) 2102 -total at measuring 5.44 acres. 3. It is further alleged by the counsel for the appellants (original petitioners) that the Government has constructed road through agency, who is respondent no.6, from Bhartu Mahto house to Tejo Puri house and in between these two points the road has been constructed upon the plots belonging to these appellants being plot nos. (i) 1598; (ii) 1599; (iii) 1614 and (iv) 2102 under Khata no. 23 and 18. 4. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the land has been used by the Government for construction of road without their being any acquisition of the land and hence, compensation may kindly be awarded. 5. Counsel appearing for the respondent-State submitted that they have filed counter affidavit in this Letters Patent Appeal because no affidavit was filed in W.P.(C) No.6946 of 2013 and it is stated in the counter affidavit paragraph nos. 16, 17, 18 and 19 as under: "16. 5. Counsel appearing for the respondent-State submitted that they have filed counter affidavit in this Letters Patent Appeal because no affidavit was filed in W.P.(C) No.6946 of 2013 and it is stated in the counter affidavit paragraph nos. 16, 17, 18 and 19 as under: "16. That with regard to statements made in paragraph-9 of the Letters Patent Appeal under reply, it is stated and submitted that the same are substantially correct, but are to be read with addition that the said scheme was confined to construction of Earth Moonram Road only on Gairmazurwa Plot No.1621 under Khata No. 53 of villageKurho Bindo, P.S. Jamua, for the benefit of villagers of Harijan Tola for approaching school by students and for approaching Pucca Road at village-Prachidih, P.S . Jamua. 17. That with regard to statements made in Paragraph-10 of the Letters Patent Appeal under reply, it is stated and submitted that the same is totally false and not correct and as such hereby denied by the answering respondents. From enquiry and report submitted by Respondent No.6 and Junior Engineer it would be evident that Respondent No. 6 has not made any construction of Road on Raiyati lands of the appellants. 18. That with regard to statements made in Paragraphs -11 to 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal under reply, it is stated and submitted that the matter of records. However, it is further submitted that Respondent No.6 was authorised to make construction of Road only on Gairmazurwa Plot No. 1621 and from report submitted by Respondent 6 and Junior Engineer it would be evident that Respondent No.6 has not made any construction of Road on Raiyati Land of the appellants rather he made construction of Road on Gairmazurwa Plot No. 1621 as per Project. 19. That with regard to statements made in Paragraph-16 of the Letters Patent Appeal under reply, it is stated and submitted that no Road has been constructed on any part of Raiyati Land of appellants by the Respondent No.6 and as such question of acquisition of Raiyati land of the appellants does not arise. It is undisputed fact that Project No. 03/12-13 was confined for construction of Road over Gairmazurwa Plot No. 1621 and in fact, Road has been constructed by Respondent No.6 on the Gairmazurwa Land. It is undisputed fact that Project No. 03/12-13 was confined for construction of Road over Gairmazurwa Plot No. 1621 and in fact, Road has been constructed by Respondent No.6 on the Gairmazurwa Land. If any, Road has been constructed on any part of Raiyati land of appellants as alleged State is not responsible for the same." (Emphasis supplied) 6. In view of the aforesaid paragraphs in the counter affidavit, it appears that the highly disputed question of fact is involved whether the road is constructed on the land of these appellants or on the governmental land and hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 6946 of 2013 judgment and order dated 5th October, 2015. 7. Liberty is reserved with these appellants to file a civil suit with injunction application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure mainly for the reason that in a counter affidavit filed by the State the allegations of ownership and the situation of road are highly disputed questions of fact. Moreover, map is also annexed by the Government in their supplementary affidavit filed in this L.P.A. which is at Annexure-B/1 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the Stateauthorities in which the road is shown in a red colour whereas, the green colour road is never constructed by the Government. This is categorically stated by the counsel appearing for the State that construction of road in green colour is not by the Government at all and hence, such land is never acquired by the Government and if it is a land of the appellants they can use the said land in a lawful manner. 8. In view of these facts, we see no reason to entertain this L.P.A. at this stage because green colour road, as stated at AnnexureB/1 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the respondent-State, is never constructed by the Government nor by respondent no.6, as stated by the counsel appearing for respondent no.6. 9. With these observations, this Letters Patent Appeal is hereby, disposed of. (D.N. Patel, A.C.J.) (Amitav K. Gupta, J.) VK." 4. The aforesaid order is maintained as it is by us because dictation was given in open Court in presence of the counsels for both the sides. 9. With these observations, this Letters Patent Appeal is hereby, disposed of. (D.N. Patel, A.C.J.) (Amitav K. Gupta, J.) VK." 4. The aforesaid order is maintained as it is by us because dictation was given in open Court in presence of the counsels for both the sides. We see no reason to alter anything from the aforesaid order, which is placed on Board today so that matter shall be deemed to have been disposed of today instead of 3rd January, 2018. 5. With the aforesaid observations, this Letters Patent Appeal is, hereby, disposed of.