Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 159 (JHR)

Arjun Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2020-01-24

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2020
JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Lalan Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Railway, Mr. B.B. Sinha, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent-State in W.P. (C) No. 4878 of 2014, Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned Sr. SC-III appearing on behalf of the respondent-State in W.P. (C) No. 732 of 2015 and Ms. Monalisha Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-NTPC. 2. The petitioners have preferred both the writ petitions for a direction upon the respondents to return the un-utilized or mis-utilized land in view of the provision of Section 101 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 2013). 3. Mr. Lalan Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the land in question has been acquired in the year 2004. He further submits that the land in question has not been utilized for that purpose for which it was acquired. He further submits that the land was transferred to the respondent-NTPC by the authority concerned. He further submits that in view of the provisions of Act, it is not permissible to transfer the un-utilized land for other purpose. By way of referring Section 101 of the Act, 2013 he submits that in view of the provision, the un-utilized land needs to be transferred to the petitioners. By way of referring Section 99 of the Act, 2013 he submits that no change from the purpose for which the land is originally sought to be acquired shall be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents fairly submit that the award has already been implemented and the awarded amount has already been disbursed to the awardees. They further submit that both the cases are not covered under the new Act, 2013 because acquisition was made under the old Act and the award has already been satisfied. They further submit that so far as the Section 24 (2) of the new Act, 2013 is concerned is not applicable in the case in hand. They further submit that the nature of acquisition has not been changed as it was required for the purpose of railways and it is being utilized by the Railways. 5. They further submit that so far as the Section 24 (2) of the new Act, 2013 is concerned is not applicable in the case in hand. They further submit that the nature of acquisition has not been changed as it was required for the purpose of railways and it is being utilized by the Railways. 5. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents, this Court finds that the dispute cannot be decided by a writ court and further considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, as petitioners have already filed several representations before the authority concerned by way of Annexure-7 series it needs to be decided at the first instance by the authority concerned. 6. In view of facts the learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to file fresh representation along with all relevant documents before the respondent no. 3. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribag within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of a order. If such representation is filed within the aforesaid period, the respondent no. 3 shall decide the representation of the petitioners within eight weeks thereafter in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, both the writ petitions stand disposed of with the above observations and directions.