Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 500 (JHR)

Barik Khan v. Sitaram Mahto

2019-02-19

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2019
JUDGMENT Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for direction on the State-respondent to ensure establishment of power plant in Tokisood area by respondent no.5 in terms of Memorandum of Understanding dated 12.01.2007, based upon which the petitioners have transferred their lands in favour of respondent no.5. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2007 approximately 24 MOUs were entered into between Government of Jharkhand and such industrial houses, basing upon which the petitioners have been convinced with respect to their future prospect i.e. establishing industries power plant etc. The petitioners seeing the lucrative part of the MOU and assessing thereof, have agreed to transfer their land in favour of the respondent no.5 so that the entire area will be developed and they will get overall development. The petitioners after having transferred their land, terms and conditions of the Memorandum of Understanding have been flouted, since none of the developmental work as referred in the said Memorandum of Understanding, has been executed till date, therefore, this writ petition. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State-respondent wherein in W.P(C) no.367 of 2018 and W.P(C) no.393 of 2018 the claim regarding the MOU has not been disputed rather it has been said that such MOUs since pertains to industrial department, the industry department is to say about the same. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the rival submissions, the admitted position in this case is that the petitioners have tried to make out a case on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding annexed with the writ petition. 5. It is relevant from the said Memorandum of Understanding that the decision for development of the area has been taken, for which one MOU was signed by the then Chief Minister and Ministers of the Cabinet, the same being a non-statutory. 6. The petitioners have prayed that on basis of said proposal as contained in the Memorandum of Understanding they have transferred their land, therefore, the Writ Court may interfere and command upon the respondents to enforce the understating in between the State and respondent no.5 since the petitioners have been cheated as because no developmental work has yet been initiated. 7. The petitioners have prayed that on basis of said proposal as contained in the Memorandum of Understanding they have transferred their land, therefore, the Writ Court may interfere and command upon the respondents to enforce the understating in between the State and respondent no.5 since the petitioners have been cheated as because no developmental work has yet been initiated. 7. Hence the direction in the nature of command has been sought for under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. It is settled position of law that the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised, if there is legal vested right and the same cannot be said to be accrued on the basis of agreement or Memorandum of Understanding, therefore, this Court refrains itself in exercising the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. In view thereof, aforesaid writ petitions are dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to pursue their grievance before the appropriate forum, if they so wish.