Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 640 (JHR)

Pravin Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2021-08-18

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2021
JUDGMENT : RAJESH SHANKAR, J. 1. The case is taken up through Video Conferencing. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to grant compensation along with interest to the petitioner in lieu of acquisition of his land appertaining to Khata No. 9, Plot No. 439, Village-Sayal Thana No. 23, District Ramgarh, measuring an area of 27 Decimals which was acquired by the respondents vide L.A. Case No. 03/81-82. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner under their Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy (R&R Policy) in lieu of acquisition of the said land. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said land was purchased by the petitioner’s mother, Balmati Devi, by virtue of registered sale-deed in the year 1966 from one Jageshwar Sao. Subsequently, the said land was mutated in her name vide Mutation Case No. 87 of 1969-70 and she came in possession of the same. The rent of the said land was continuously paid to the government. It is further submitted that the State Government initiated a land acquisition proceeding vide L.A. Case No. 03 of 1981-82 for acquisition of the land measuring an area of 4.07 Acres under Plot Nos. 402, 431, 432, 433, 439 and 518 for Sayal D Colliery and the persons, namely Munshi Sao, Awinash Sao and Jageshwar Sao, all sons of Haidar Sao, Ram Sao and Haridas Sao, both sons of Kashi Sao, were awarded compensation for the same to the tune of Rs. 39,960.43 vide order dated 07.03.1984. However, the petitioner’s mother was neither issued notice nor awarded any compensation in lieu of acquisition of her land measuring an area of 27 Decimals under Plot No. 439, Khata No. 9. It is further submitted that under the R&R Policy of the respondents, the land losers/their nominees were provided employment. More particularly, for acquisition of Plot Nos. 431, 402, 439, 518, 433 and 432, one Madan Prasad, who was the grandson of Munshi Sao, was provided appointment. Since said Madan Prasad, apart from getting compensation, also got appointment under R&R Policy, he deprived the petitioner/his mother of his/her legitimate right. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s mother was an illiterate lady, who did not have sufficient means and knowledge to seek remedy under the law and she passed away in the year 2018. Since said Madan Prasad, apart from getting compensation, also got appointment under R&R Policy, he deprived the petitioner/his mother of his/her legitimate right. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s mother was an illiterate lady, who did not have sufficient means and knowledge to seek remedy under the law and she passed away in the year 2018. The petitioner made representations before the respondent No. 4 seeking information to that regard under RTI. However, he was provided information under RTI that no record was available in the concerned office with respect to payment of compensation and providing employment in lieu of acquisition. It is further submitted that the petitioner also sought information under RTI Act from the Management of CCL about acquisition of the land in question, payment of compensation and providing employment to the land owners and it would be evident from the reply of the respondent No. 8 annexing therewith the copy of the agreement dated 24.09.1984 entered between the land ousters and the representatives of the C.C.L. Barkakana that the said land was also included in the acquired land and the employment was provided to one Madan Prasad, who was the nominee of the land losers. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State as well as the respondent-CCL submit that the petitioner is raising his claim after more than 30 years from the date of acquisition of the said land and as such the same is hopelessly barred under the law. It is further submitted that such a highly belated claim of compensation and employment in lieu of acquisition may not be entertained by this Court and the present writ petition may be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. The petitioner seeks compensation and employment under R&R Policy of the respondents for acquisition of the said land of her mother which was acquired vide L.A. Case No. 03 of 1981-82. The claim of the petitioner is that one Madan Prasad had received compensation and also got employment for the acquired land including the said land of the petitioner’s mother. 6. In the case Syed Maqbool Ali vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2011) 15 SCC 383 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “12. The claim of the petitioner is that one Madan Prasad had received compensation and also got employment for the acquired land including the said land of the petitioner’s mother. 6. In the case Syed Maqbool Ali vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2011) 15 SCC 383 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “12. The High Courts should also be cautious in entertaining writ petitions filed decades after the dispossession, seeking directions for acquisition and payment of compensation. It is not uncommon for villagers to offer/donate some part of their lands voluntarily for a public purpose which would benefit them or the community as for example, construction of an access road to the village or their property, or construction of a village tank or a bund to prevent flooding/erosion. When they offer their land for such public purpose, the land would be of little or negligible value. But decades later, when land values increase, either on account of passage of time or on account of developments or improvements carried out by the State, the landholders come up with belated claims alleging that their lands were taken without acquisition and without their consent. When such claims are made after several decades, the State would be at a disadvantage to contest the claim, as it may not have the records to show in what circumstances the lands were given/donated and whether the land was given voluntarily. Therefore, belated writ petitions, without proper explanation for the delay, are liable to be dismissed. Be that as it may.” 7. In the aforesaid case, their Lordships have held that the High Court should be cautious to entertain belated claims of compensation in lieu of acquisition as it would be very difficult for the State to contest such belated claims of the aggrieved person on account of non-availability of record. It has thus been held that there must be a proper explanation for making belated claim of compensation. 8. So far as the belated claim of employment is concerned, this Court had an occasion to deal with the same in the matter of compassionate appointment in the case of Shibu Rajwar vs. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Others, 2017 SCC Online Jhar 3307 wherein after discussing judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it has been held as under:- “7. In the case of Butu Prasad Kumbhar vs. Steel Authority of India, 1995 Supp. In the case of Butu Prasad Kumbhar vs. Steel Authority of India, 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 225 held in Para 6 as under: “6. The constitutional challenge based on Article 21 does not appear to have any substance. In Olga Tellis, (1985) 3 SCC 545 , it was observed by this Court that the concept of right of life conferred was wide and far-reaching and the deprivation of the right to livelihood without following the procedure established by law was violative of the fundamental guarantee to a citizen. Needless to say that petitioners or their ancestors were not deprived of their land without following the procedure established in law. Their land was taken under the Land Acquisition Act. They were paid compensation for it. Therefore, the challenge raised on violation of Article 21 is devoid of any merit. Even otherwise the obligation of the State to ensure that no citizen is deprived of his livelihood does not extend to provide employment to every member of each family displaced in consequence of acquisition of land. Rourkela Plant was established for the growth of the country. It is one of the prestigious steel plants. It was established in public sector. The Government has paid market value for the land acquired. Even if the Government or the steel plant would not have offered any employment to any person it would not have resulted in violation of any fundamental right. Yet considering the poverty of the persons who were displaced both the Central and the State Government took steps to ensure that each family was protected by giving employment to at least one member in the plant. We fail to appreciate how such a step by the Government is violative of Article 21. The claim of the petitioners that unless each adult member is given employment or the future generation is ensured of a preferential claim it would be arbitrary or contrary with the constitutional guarantee is indeed stretching Article 21 without any regard to its scope and ambit as explained by this Court. Truly speaking it is just the other way. Acceptance of such a demand would be against Article 14.” 8. I have perused the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Tukaram Kana Joshi (Supra), as has been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Truly speaking it is just the other way. Acceptance of such a demand would be against Article 14.” 8. I have perused the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Tukaram Kana Joshi (Supra), as has been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the question of condonation of delay is one of discretion and has to be decided on the basis of the facts of each case. Merely because, there is delay in raising the claim, it is not an impediment to exercise judicial discretion. In the said case, the fact was that the land was taken in possession by the authorities but due to lapse of the proceeding, the compensation and other benefits as were given to the other displaced persons, were not extended to the appellant despite the fact that he had been pursuing his claim before the authorities continuously. 9. However, in the present case, the land of the father of the petitioner was acquired in the year 1989-90 and at that time, the children of the petitioner were minor. Though it is claimed by the petitioner that an application for appointment was initially made by his wife in time, yet the said claim was not pursued. The fact also reveals that the family of deceased was not in dire need of any immediate assistance. The said claim was perhaps preserved by the petitioner to secure employment of his children after they attain majority. The scheme of rehabilitation employment cannot be allowed to perpetuate for more than 20 years. Grant of employment under rehabilitation scheme after such long delay or a claim for such employment after attaining majority would itself be violating of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. It would amount to reserving the employment for the descendants of the displaced persons only. Rehabilitation by way of appointment cannot be considered as another source of recruitment or a scheme for reserving future vacancies for minors of the displaced persons. It is apparent from the fact of the present case that during the period the lands of the petitioner were acquired, the petitioner did not make any claim for getting employment in lieu of the acquisition of 7.63 acres of lands. It is apparent from the fact of the present case that during the period the lands of the petitioner were acquired, the petitioner did not make any claim for getting employment in lieu of the acquisition of 7.63 acres of lands. Once the children of the petitioner attained majority, the petitioner started pursuing the matter with the respondent BCCL for their employment in lieu of acquisition of his land made in the year 1989-90. Thus, in the facts of the case, I am not persuaded by the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, so as to condone the delay committed by the petitioner in pursing the matter of employment in lieu of acquisition of his land made in the year 1989-90.” 9. Thus, the claim of appointment after a huge delay by a person, who was minor at the time of acquisition, cannot be allowed. The rehabilitation by way of appointment cannot be considered as another source of recruitment or a scheme for reserving further vacancies for minors of the displaced persons, rather it is to meet the immediate hardships of the displaced family. Reserving the employment for the descendants of displaced person would amount to violation of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 10. Admittedly, the acquisition proceeding of the said land is of the year 1981-82 and the possession of the said land has also taken by the State Government after providing compensation and employment to the displaced persons. The petitioner has himself averred in the writ petition that compensation and employment for acquisition of the said land were already availed by one Madan Prasad. The petitioner’s mother during her life time had not raised any objection before the concerned authority against payment of compensation and providing employment to said Madan Prasad. Had the petitioner’s mother made the said claim during the acquisition proceeding or within reasonable period after her dispossession from the said land, the same would have effectively been determined by the concerned authority. If the petitioner’s claim is allowed by this Court at this belated stage, it would open a pandora box for those, who feel themselves aggrieved by one or the other reason and in such a situation, no acquisition proceeding would ever come to an end. If the petitioner’s claim is allowed by this Court at this belated stage, it would open a pandora box for those, who feel themselves aggrieved by one or the other reason and in such a situation, no acquisition proceeding would ever come to an end. Even if it is assumed that no notice was served to the petitioner’s mother during acquisition of the said land, she was certainly aware of the reason for her dispossession i.e. the acquisition proceeding. The petitioner has not sufficiently explained in the writ petition as to why no objection was raised by his mother at the time of dispossession from the said land. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the considered view that the belated claim of the petitioner seeking compensation and employment for acquisition of the land in question cannot be entertained under extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 12. The present writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.