Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1830 (JHR)

Ranbir Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2019-11-07

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2019
JUDGMENT : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the notification dated 27.06.1994 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) issued by the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 so far as the same relates to acquisition of 90 Decimals of the petitioner’s land appertaining to Mouza-Rohrabandh, Khata No. 269, Plot Nos. 555 & 555/5218 for the purpose of construction of Saraidhella-Patherdih Road (Phase-III) in Dhanbad district. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents restraining them from taking the possession of the said land of the petitioner as no compensation and solaltium have been paid to him for acquisition of the said land. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the aforesaid land of the petitioner was acquired by the State Government in a land acquisition proceeding for the purpose of construction of the aforesaid road, yet he has not been paid any compensation for the same. It is further submitted that though the petitioner filed Money Suit No. 11/2006 before the Court of the Sub-Judge-VI, Dhanbad seeking decree in his favour for an amount of Rs.6,20,000/- along with appropriate interest in form of compensation to be paid to him for acquisition of the said land which was dismissed vide judgment dated 15.07.2011, yet he is entitled for compensation as the respondents have acted upon the notification dated 27.06.1994 for acquisition of the land of the petitioner in Land Acquisition Case No. 106/93-B-40, however, the compensation has not been paid to him. 3. On the contrary, learned S.C (Mines)-II appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand submits that the petitioner claiming compensation for acquisition of the land in question, filed the aforesaid money suit before the Civil Court which was dismissed on contest. According to the stand taken by the respondent authorities in the said suit, the aforesaid land of the petitioner was not acquired. As such, the present writ petition preferred by the petitioner claiming compensation for the land in question may not be entertained. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. According to the stand taken by the respondent authorities in the said suit, the aforesaid land of the petitioner was not acquired. As such, the present writ petition preferred by the petitioner claiming compensation for the land in question may not be entertained. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. Admittedly, the petitioner preferred Money Suit No. 11/2006 before the Court of the Sub-Judge-VI, Dhanbad seeking decree in his favour for an amount of Rs.6,20,000/- together with pendente lite and future interest against the respondent authorities. While adjudicating the said suit, the learned Sub-Judge framed five issues which are detailed as under: “i. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? ii. Whether the plaintiff has got valid cause of action for the suit? iii. Whether the suit is barred by the law of limitation? iv. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties? v. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get money decree for a sum of Rs.6,20,000/- with interest pendente lite alongwith future interest against the defendant in connection with L.A. Case No. 106/93B-40?” 5. All the aforesaid five issues were decided against the petitioner and the said suit was dismissed on contest holding inter alia that the petitioner was not able to prove that his land was ever acquired by the defendants (the State authorities) for construction of the said road. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that if as per the finding of the learned Sub-Judge, the land in question was not acquired by the defendant authorities, he is certainly entitled for appropriate compensation as the same has been used for the purpose of construction of the said road. I am not impressed with the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, particularly, in view of the fact that the petitioner had all possible legal remedies available with him at the time of acquisition/use of the land in question for construction of the said road. Admittedly, the petitioner did not take any recourse under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, rather he preferred a suit against the State authorities which was dismissed on contest. After dismissal of the said suit, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming compensation in lieu of acquisition of the said land. Admittedly, the petitioner did not take any recourse under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, rather he preferred a suit against the State authorities which was dismissed on contest. After dismissal of the said suit, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming compensation in lieu of acquisition of the said land. The impugned notification issued by the State Government under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 was issued in the year 1994 and much water has flown over the bridge since then. 6. In the case of State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. K.N. Farms & Industries Private Limited reported in (2012) 5 SCC 297 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “21. Another grave error committed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court is that the learned Judges completely overlooked the settled law that in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court does not entertain belated claims - State of M.P. V. Bhailal Bhai, (1964) 6 SCR 261 : AIR 1964 SC 1006 and Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi (1969) 1 SCC 110 ” 7. In the case of Mahavir & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in (2018) 3 SCC 588 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “23. In the instant case, the claim has been made not only belatedly, but neither the petitioners nor their previous three generations had ever approached any of the authorities in writing for claiming compensation. No representation had ever been filed with any authority, none has been annexed and there is no averment made in the petition that any such representation had ever been filed. The claim appears not only stale and dead but extremely clouded. This we are mentioning as additional reasons, as such claims not only suffer from delay and laches but courts are not supposed to entertain such claims. Besides such claims become doubtful, cannot be received for consideration being barred due to delay and laches.” 8. Thus, the claim of the petitioner which involves factual determination, cannot be entertained by the Writ Court that too, after lapse of about more than 25 years. Hence, I see no merit in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.