Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 327 (JHR)

Rajiv Mandal v. State of Jharkhand

2023-03-15

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2023
JUDGMENT : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 08.06.2019 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.3 in Misc. Case No. 15/2018-19 whereby the petitioner’s representation dated 28.01.2019 filed pursuant to the order dated 18.01.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3838/2018 claiming compensation for acquisition of his land appertaining to Khata No. 142, Plot No. 1344, Mouza-Barki Sariya, Thana No. 44, District-Giridih, measuring an area of 18 Decimals which was acquired by the respondents for the purpose of Dedicated Freight Corridor Project of Railways, has been rejected. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondents to make payment of appropriate compensation to the petitioner for acquisition of the said land as he has lawful title over the same. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance of the order dated 18.01.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3838/2018, the petitioner filed representation before the respondent No.3 on 28.01.2019 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) along with all the relevant documents with respect to his title over the said land. Subsequently, the petitioner appeared before the respondent No.3 on two dates i.e. 06.02.2019 & 21.02.2019. On both the dates, the petitioner reiterated before the respondent No.3 that the relevant documents with respect to his lawful title over the said land were already submitted along with the aforesaid representation. Despite that, the respondent No.3 issued letter No. 449 dated 07.06.2019 to the respondent No.5 calling for a report in this regard during pendency of Cont. Case (Civil) No. 358/2019 filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent No.5 without verifying the relevant records or issuing any notice to the petitioner to make the documents available to him, submitted his report to the respondent No.3 vide letter No. 296 dated 08.06.2019 stating that the petitioner did not submit the required documents with respect to his claim of lawful title over the land in question. Finally, the respondent No.3 vide the impugned order dated 08.06.2019, rejected the petitioner’s representation seeking compensation for utilising his land for construction of Dedicated Freight Corridor of Railways primarily on the ground that he did not submit the required documents suggesting his lawful title over the land in question. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 stating inter alia that the respondent No.3 called for a report from the respondent No.5, who vide letter No. 296 dated 08.06.2019, submitted a report stating that the petitioner did not file the required documents in support of his claim of title and ownership over the land in question and also stated that the Power Grid as well as Power Grid Control Room of Railways are standing thereon for last 30 years. Accordingly, the respondent No.3 vide the impugned order dated 08.06.2019, rejected the petitioner’s claim for compensation. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. The petitioner has annexed a copy of letter No. 364 dated 18.05.2018 issued by the respondent No.5 to the respondent No.4 as Annexure-6 to the writ petition mentioning the entire details of the land in question with respect to the petitioner’s title over the same. The respondent No.4 thereafter vide letter No. 179 dated 05.06.2018 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) requested the respondent No.3 to take appropriate action in view of the report submitted by the respondent No.5. The respondent No.3 had earlier released a press communiqué to the concerned persons including the petitioner calling upon them to appear before him on 25.01.2018 and to submit the required documents concerning their respective lands in support of their claim for compensation. The petitioner’s case is that though he submitted all the required documents before the respondent No.3, however, no decision was taken by the said authority, due to which he filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3838/2018, which was disposed of vide order dated 18.01.2019 giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent No.3 along with all valid documents pertaining to the plot in question and the concerned respondent was directed to examine his claim from the original record of acquisition and if it was found that he had perfect title over the land in question, to take necessary decision in accordance with law within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. The petitioner thereafter preferred Contempt Case (Civil) No. 358/2019 alleging non-compliance of the said order passed by this Court and during pendency of the same, the impugned order dated 08.06.2019 has been passed by the respondent No.3. 5. The petitioner thereafter preferred Contempt Case (Civil) No. 358/2019 alleging non-compliance of the said order passed by this Court and during pendency of the same, the impugned order dated 08.06.2019 has been passed by the respondent No.3. 5. The respondents in their counter affidavit have not denied existence of letter No. 364 dated 18.05.2018 issued by the respondent No.5 to the respondent No.4 wherein the entire details of the land in question have been mentioned. Nonetheless, the petitioner’s claim is that he again submitted all the required documents along with the representation filed before the respondent No.3 on 28.01.2019. Unfortunately, the respondent No.3 did not take pain to verify the said documents filed by the petitioner along with the said representation and asked the respondent No.5 to submit a report in this regard vide letter No. 449 dated 07.06.2019, who hurriedly vide letter No. 296 dated 08.06.2019 i.e. on the next day, submitted his report mentioning that the petitioner did not produce any document in support of his title over the said land. The aforesaid facts clearly indicate irresponsible attitude of the respondent authorities, particularly, the respondent Nos. 3 & 5 and due to the said attitude, the petitioner has been made to unnecessary suffer and has been compelled to file the present writ petition. The observation made in the impugned order dated 08.06.2019 that Power Grid and Power Grid Control Room of Railways have been constructed over the land in question, does not disentitle the petitioner from seeking compensation as his specific case is that the land in question was acquired in the year 1999 without initiating any legal proceeding for acquisition of the same. However, in the year 2013, the respondent No.3 started process of acquisition of the land in question for the purpose of Dedicated Freight Corridor Project of Indian Railways. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the impugned order dated 08.06.2019 passed by the respondent No.3 in Misc. Case No. 15/2018-19 cannot be sustained in law and the same is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the said respondent to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner so as to enable him to produce the required documents in support of his lawful title over the land in question. The matter is remanded to the said respondent to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner so as to enable him to produce the required documents in support of his lawful title over the land in question. The said exercise shall be completed by the respondent No.3 within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 7. The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. 8. Consequently, I.A. No. 5516/2022 also stands disposed of.