Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1096 (JHR)

Arjun Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2021-12-22

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2021
JUDGMENT : The present case is taken up through video conferencing. I.A. No. 7388 of 2021 The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for ignoring the defect no. 3 as pointed out by the office. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and for the reasons stated in the present interlocutory application, the defect no. 3, as pointed out by the office, is ignored. 3. I.A. No. 7388 of 2021 stands disposed of. 4. So far as the remaining defect, as pointed out by the office, is concerned, the same is ignored at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners. W.P.(C) No. 4824 of 2021 5. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to forthwith pay the compensation of land as well as houses/structures standing over the respective plots of the petitioners as detailed in paragraph-5 to 7 of the present writ petition and if the said land have yet not been lawfully acquired, the respondents may be restrained from evicting the petitioners from their respective land as well as demolishing the house/shops/structures standing over the same. 6. Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners, while referring to letter no. 193 dated 14.07.2014 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) issued by the Circle Officer, Saria, District- Giridih (the respondent no. 5), submits that vide said letter, the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were informed that their land appertaining to plot no. 1326, Khata no. 03, Thana No.-44, Mouza- Barki Saria measuring an area of 3.5 decimals had been acquired for special railway project. The documents relating to the purchase of land as well as the rent receipts were also produced by the said petitioners before the respondent no. 5. Thereafter, they were directed to submit other relevant documents relating to the said land by 24.07.2014. Surprisingly, the District Land Acquisition Officer, Giridih (the respondent no. 4), vide letter no. 112 dated 25.08.2018, informed the Additional Collector, Giridih that plot no. 1326 under Khata no. 03, Mouza- Saria was not acquired for the purpose of special railway project. 7. It is thus submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the aforesaid two contrary letters issued by the respondent nos. 4 and 5 have created a confusion as to whether the land of the petitioners appertaining to plot no. 1326, Khata no. 03, Mouza- Saria was not acquired for the purpose of special railway project. 7. It is thus submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the aforesaid two contrary letters issued by the respondent nos. 4 and 5 have created a confusion as to whether the land of the petitioners appertaining to plot no. 1326, Khata no. 03 have been acquired or not. If the same have been acquired, the petitioners are entitled for appropriate compensation in accordance with law and if the same have not been acquired, the respondent authorities have no right to evict the petitioners from the land in question and to demolish the structures standing over the same. 8. Mr. Aishwarya Prakash, learned A.C. to S.C. (Mines)-I appearing on behalf of the State-respondents, submits that the aforesaid fact is required to be factually examined by an appropriate authority and hence if the petitioners prefer fresh representation(s) before the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih (the respondent no. 2) on this aspect, an appropriate decision in accordance with law will be taken. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view that the respondent nos. 4 and 5 have issued two contrary letters with regard to acquisition of land in question, this Court is of the view that the matter is required to be considered by a higher authority. Hence, the petitioners are given liberty to prefer fresh representation(s) before the respondent no. 2 on the present issue. On receipt of the said representation(s), the respondent no. 2, after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners/their representatives and on calling for the relevant records (if so required), shall take an appropriate informed decision in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of filing of the said representation(s). 10. The writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid liberty and direction.