Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1024 (JHR)

Budhu Singh Munda v. State of Jharkhand

2022-08-16

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2022
ORDER : At the request of the counsel for the petitioner, “The Additional Director-cum-Chairman, Visthapan Nirgaman Samiti, Subernarekha Multipurpose Project, Bikas Bhavan, Adityapur, P.O. & P.S.-Adityapur, District-Seraikella-Kharsawan” is permitted to be impleaded as respondent no. 7 in the present writ petition. 2. Necessary insertion in the cause title of the writ petition be made by the counsel for the petitioner in course of the day. 3. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing memo no. 06 dated 06.01.2016 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent no. 2-Rehabilitation Officer No.-2, Subernarekha Multipurpose Project, Chandil whereby the petitioner’s claim for issuance of ‘Separate Vikas Pustika’ in his favour has been rejected on the ground that as per master-card no. 10068 issued to his father-Kokil Singh Munda in the year 2006 (03.06.2006), the petitioner’s age was mentioned as 18 years and as such he was not born on 06.10.1987 i.e. the date of issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, “the Act, 1894”) with respect to Chano village. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner as well as two others namely Kartik Singh Munda and Sadhu Singh Munda earlier preferred writ petition in this Court being W.P.(C) No. 1028 of 2009 for directing the concerned authorities to dispose of their application/representation in accordance with law, rules, regulations, policies and enforceable Government orders applicable to them. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 27.06.2009 directing the respondent no. 4 of the said case (the respondent no. 7 herein) to hear the said petitioners or their representatives and to dispose of their application in accordance with law, rules, regulations, policies and enforceable Government orders applicable to them and the respondent no. 4 was at liberty to call upon the same from the concerned respondents if he needed any further details. The petitioner was also directed to cooperate in the said hearing and to provide all necessary documents/evidences. Accordingly, the respondent no. 4 was directed to take appropriate decision on the petitioners’ application within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the said order. Thereafter, the petitioner filed fresh application before the respondent no. 7 on 04.08.2009 in terms with the aforesaid order of this Court. The said matter was kept pending for years and finally vide impugned memo no. Thereafter, the petitioner filed fresh application before the respondent no. 7 on 04.08.2009 in terms with the aforesaid order of this Court. The said matter was kept pending for years and finally vide impugned memo no. 06 dated 06.01.2016, the petitioner was informed that his name for issuance of ‘Separate Vikas Pustika’ was rejected as he was not born on the date of issuance of the concerned notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894 i.e. 06.10.1987. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned memo dated 06.01.2016 was issued by the respondent no. 2 on the basis of decision taken by three-members committee as per the minutes of meeting dated 23.12.2013 according to which the petitioner’s case was considered at serial no. 3 and on perusal of the same, it would appear that the age of the petitioner was considered on the basis of master-card no. 10068 issued to his father Late Kokil Singh Munda. Since the petitioner, in terms with order dated 27.06.2009 passed by this Court in WP.(C) No. 1028 of 2009, had submitted all relevant documents including copy of birth certificate issued by the Directorate of Statistics and Evaluation, Department of Planning and Development, Government of Jharkhand wherein his date of birth has been mentioned as 03.05.1969, the same was required to be considered by the concerned respondents. Merely taking note of petitioner’s age mentioned in the master-card for reaching a conclusion that the petitioner was not born on the date of issuance of notification dated 06.10.1987, is highly arbitrary and unjustified. Though the applicable rehabilitation policy was enforced till March, 2022, yet subsequently, the respondent no. 2, vide office order no. 838 dated 20.07.2022 (a copy of which has been produced by the counsel for the petitioner in course of argument), has informed all concerned that camps will be convened village-wise for consideration of the applications of the displaced persons of Chandil Dam sub-mergence area up to R.L.-183.00M. The name of village Chano has also been mentioned at serial no. 6(4) of the said office order wherein the date of organising the camp of said village has been mentioned as 29.08.2022 and 30.08.2022. The name of village Chano has also been mentioned at serial no. 6(4) of the said office order wherein the date of organising the camp of said village has been mentioned as 29.08.2022 and 30.08.2022. Since the impugned decision has been taken by the respondent authorities without considering the birth certificate of the petitioner issued by the Directorate of Statistics and Evaluation, Department of Planning and Development, Government of Jharkhand, the said decision may be quashed and the concerned respondent may be directed to take a fresh decision. 6. Mr. Sandeep Verma, learned A.C. to Sr.S.C.-III appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that though there has been delay in taking decision in pursuance of order dated 27.06.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1028 of 2009, yet on perusal of the minutes of meeting dated 23.12.2013 on the basis of which the impugned memo no. 06 dated 06.01.2016 has been issued by the respondent no. 2, it would appear that as per petitioner’s age mentioned in the master-card issued to his father, he was born after the issuance of notification dated 06.10.1987. Since the petitioner had not attained 18 years of age on the said date, he was found ineligible for issuance of ‘Separate Vikas Pustika’ in his name. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the content of the writ petition. 8. As per order dated 27.06.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1028 of 2009, the respondent no. 4 of the said case (the respondent no. 7 herein) was given liberty to call for any further details, if so required, from the concerned respondents and the petitioner was also directed to cooperate in the said hearing. The petitioner has made specific averment in paragraph-3 of the present writ petition that he had submitted all necessary documents along with the birth certificate issued by the Directorate of Statistics and Evaluation, Department of Planning and Development, Government of Jharkhand as was directed vide office order dated 02.07.2007 (Anneuxre-7 to the writ petition) of the Additional Director, Subernarekha Project, Adityapur along with Aadhar Card as well as master-card no. 10068 issued in the name of his father- Kokil Singh Munda in the year 2006. The case of the petitioner is that the concerned respondent while taking decision in this regard only considered the master-card. 10068 issued in the name of his father- Kokil Singh Munda in the year 2006. The case of the petitioner is that the concerned respondent while taking decision in this regard only considered the master-card. Other relevant documents regarding his actual date of birth such as birth certificate, Aadhar Card were not considered. 9. On perusal of copy of the birth certificate of the petitioner (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) issued by the Directorate of Statistics and Evaluation, Department of Planning and Development, Government of Jharkhand, it appears that his date of birth has been mentioned inter alia as 03.05.1969. This Court is of the view that date of birth certificate and Aadhar Card are the documents which should have been considered by the concerned respondent while making actual determination of the petitioner’s age as on issuance of notification dated 06.10.1987 under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894. Accordingly, the decision of meeting dated 23.12.2013 taken by three-members committee with respect to issue mentioned at serial no. 3 which relates to the petitioner, is quashed and set aside. Consequently, the impugned memo no. 06 dated 06.01.2016 issued under the signature of the respondent no. 2 is also set aside. The matter is remanded to the respondent no. 7 to reconsider the issue with respect to the actual age of the petitioner on the basis of relevant documents i.e. date of birth certificate, Aadhar Card, etc. and thereafter to pass a fresh order regarding his eligibility to get a ‘Separate Vikas Pustika’ under the applicable scheme/policy of the State Government. The petitioner shall furnish additional documents, if so required by the respondent no. 7. Entire exercise shall be completed by the respondent no. 7 within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid observation and direction.