Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 244 (JHR)

Madan Karmakar v. State of Jharkhand

2021-02-25

S.N.PATHAK

body2021
JUDGMENT : The petitioner has approached this Court for direction from this Hon’ble Court to make payment of compensation in favour of the petitioner as per market price of the land in regard to the raiyati land situated at Mouza Uliyan, Ward No. III under Khata No. 4, bearing old plot Nos. 1609, 1613, 1618, 1622, 1642, 1648 (new numbers as part of 16, and also part of 16, 13, part of 14, part of 13, part of 13 (in part it is being a big plot as part has been stated), which has been acquired forcibly by Respondent No.1 (the State of Jharkhand) and Respondent No.5 (Airport Authority of India Limited) has constructed “pucca” wall for construction of airport, upon the raiyati land which was recorded in the name of Gobardhan Kamar and Chandra Mohan Kamar, grandfathers of the present petitioner in the Khatiyan of 1937 finally framed and published under Section 83 (ii) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 on 18th February, 1937 for which the then State of Bihar also received rent till 1986. 2. As per factual matrix, the original raiyats, namely, Gobardhan Kamar and Chandra Mohan Kamar were the grandfathers of the petitioner, who passed away and thereafter the present petitioner came in possession of said land and is now the only living legal heir of the original raiyat as per the record of rights finally framed and published in the year 1937. The grandfathers of the present petitioner also paid rent to the concerned State till 16.5.86. It is evident from letter No. 654, dated 20.11.06, issued by the office of the Respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur that the plots for which compensation has been claimed by the present petitioner, has been acquired by the concerned authority. The petitioner approached the concerned respondent-authorities several times and the petitioner also filed representation before the concerned respondents on 02.10.92, 07.03.92, 10.04.92 which have been duly received by the concerned authority. 3. It is specific case of the petitioner that he requested the concerned authority to consider his case and to release compensation in his favour but in spite of his repeated request the concerned authority has not taken any step till date. 3. It is specific case of the petitioner that he requested the concerned authority to consider his case and to release compensation in his favour but in spite of his repeated request the concerned authority has not taken any step till date. When the petitioner could not get any positive response from the concerned authority on his oral request, the petitioner even filed representations before the concerned authority on 27.02.12 and thereafter on 24.03.12, which has also been received by the concerned authority, but the matter remained the same and till date the petitioner has not been suitably compensated for the acquisition of the lands at market rate. Aggrieved thereto, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court for payment of compensation as per market rate of the land in regard to the raiyati land. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is legally entitled to get suitable compensation against acquisition of his land at current market rate. Due to non-payment of compensation, the petitioner is suffering a lot. The concerned authority has no power or jurisdiction not to follow the provisions contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The concerned authorities have no power or jurisdiction not to suitably compensate the present petitioner in spite of repeated request and representations filed on behalf of the present petitioner. The concerned respondents cannot violate the provisions of law in spite of the facts that name of grandfathers of petitioner is appearing in the record of rights (Khatiyan) finally published and framed in the year 1937. The concerned respondent cannot deviate or ignore or deny the rent receipts issued by concerned authority for the aforesaid land till 1986. 5. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondents drawing the attention of the Court towards paragraph No. 6 onwards of the Counter-affidavit submits that the land in question formed part and parcel of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by the then Provincial Government and conveyed to Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., now Tata Steel Ltd. by virtue of two registered deeds of conveyance dated 19.1.1912 & 23.9.1929. During the Revisional Survey & Settlement operation of 1934-37, the plots of land in question mentioned in the writ application bearing R.S. Plot Nos. Ltd., now Tata Steel Ltd. by virtue of two registered deeds of conveyance dated 19.1.1912 & 23.9.1929. During the Revisional Survey & Settlement operation of 1934-37, the plots of land in question mentioned in the writ application bearing R.S. Plot Nos. 1609, 1613, 1618, 1622, 1642, & 1648, measuring an area 2.18 acres, came to be recorded in the name of Sri Gobardhan Kamar and Chandra Mohan Kamar, under Khata No.4 of Mouza Khutandih and not Uliyan as mentioned in the writ petition as a tenant under the answering respondent. The answering respondent being the landlord in respect of Gobardhan Kamar and Chandra Mohan Kamar regained possession of the aforesaid R.S. Plots i.e. 1609, 1613, 1618, 1622, 1642 & 1648 by virtue of registered Deed of Surrender No. 2328, dated 20.5.1943, executed by said Sri Gobardhan Kamar and Chandra Mohan Kamar, thereby, extinguishing the right, title, interest and possession of the tenants. Thereafter, no rent was collected by the answering respondent Company till its intermediary interest vested in the land under the B.L.R. Act w.e.f. 1.1.1956. The registered deed of surrender executed on 20th day of May, 1943 by and between Gobardhan Kamar and Chandra Mohan Kamar sons of Aditya Kumar of the one part in favour of Tata Iron Steel Co. Ltd., inter alia, envisages the surrender of the Raiyati right in respect of Khata No. 4 Khewat No.2, Plot Nos. 1609, 1613, 1618, 1622, 1642 & 1648 total area 2.18 acres. The said transfer of the plots in question by a registered deed of surrender bearing No. 2328 dated 20.5.1943 was executed prior to the amendment of Section 46 of the C.N.T. Act i.e. when no permission of the Deputy Commissioner was required. On vesting of Company’s land in the State of Bihar under the BLR Act, the said R.S. Plots were leased to the answering respondent company under various schedules of Deed of Lease dated 1.8.1985, executed by the State of Bihar in favour of the answering respondent. In the records of right of new Survey of Ward No.3, Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee, New Plot Nos. 13, 14 and 16, mentioned in the writ petition, stand recorded in the name of Anabad Bihar Sarkar under Khata No. 85 with answering respondent (TISCO) as lessee. In the records of right of new Survey of Ward No.3, Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee, New Plot Nos. 13, 14 and 16, mentioned in the writ petition, stand recorded in the name of Anabad Bihar Sarkar under Khata No. 85 with answering respondent (TISCO) as lessee. On the expiry of the lease period as envisaged in deed of lease dated 1.8.1985, by the Indenture of Renewed Lease dated 20.8.2005, executed by the State of Jharkhand in favour of the company, the lease was renewed and the aforesaid new plots form part of Appendices B & C to the said renewed Indenture of Lease, being part of the answering respondent company’s housing and aerodrome. 7. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that admittedly since the land was never acquired, the claim of compensation is not tenable. The petitioner has no locus standi to claim the relief for payment of compensation as claimed in the instant writ application. The claim of the petitioner through his grandfathers Gobardhan Kamar and Chandra Mohan Kamar is wholly misconceived in view of the deed of surrender. By virtue of deed of surrender the right, interest and possession of the petitioner’s grandfather extinguished and as such the petitioner’s claim now over the plots in question through his grandfather is wholly mala fide and unstainable in the eyes of law. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief as claimed in the instant writ application. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.