MD MUSHA KHAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present case is taken up through Audio/Video conferencing.

(2.) The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the order dated 13.09.2019 passed by the District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Giridih (respondent no. 2) in Misc. Appeal No. 17 of 2019 (wrongly mentioned as 19 of 2019) whereby the claim of the petitioner for compensation in respect of a piece of land measuring an area of 13 decimals appertaining to Plot no. 403 under Khata No. 20 of Mouza Upraili Dhanwar, District- Giridih (hereinafter to be called "the said land") has been rejected in the light of order dated 10.01.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No. 951 of 2015. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to pay compensation for the said land at the present market rate under the provisions of "Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short "the Act, 2013") with statutory interest within a specified period.

(3.) The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the land under Plot No. 403, Khata No. 20 situated in Mouza-Upraili Dhanwar measuring an area of 46 decimals was recorded in the name of Bakar Mian in the record of rights prepared during survey operation as his raiyati land. Out of said 46 decimals, 11 decimals of land was acquired by the respondents vide Land Acquisition Case No. 38 of 1957- 58 and the compensation was also paid to the recorded tenant i.e Bakar Mian through an award dated 23.03.1959. After the death of Bakar Mian, his only son Gani Mian and two daughters inherited 35 decimals of the said land. Uneja Khatoon wife of Gani Mian purchased the share of one sister of Gani Mian to the extent of 10 1/2 decimals. The said Uneja Khatoon being the sole owner of land measuring 13 decimals, sold the said land to different purchasers namely Basudeo Prasad Agarwal jointly with Md. Musa Khan (petitioner), Jamila Khatoon, Safina Khatoon, Manaur Sheikh and Sanwar Seikh by way of five different sale deeds all dated 21.02.1992. The area which was sold jointly to Basudeo Prasad Agarwal and the petitioner was 05 decimals and the rest four were sold two decimals each (total 13 decimals). However, the petitioner purchased the share of Basudeo Prasad Agarwal measuring 2 1/2 decimals on 14.02.2015. On 11.09.2012, the aforesaid purchasers executed a registered power of attorney in favour of the petitioner authorizing him to contest legal proceedings in the matter of aforesaid piece of land. On 16.01.2015, the petitioner made representation before the District Land Acquisition Officer, Giridih (respondent no. 3) for payment of compensation in respect of the said land measuring an area of 13 decimals out of 15 decimals claiming that apart from the acquired land, the respondents have also constructed road upon the said land without paying any compensation. However, no step was taken by the respondent no. 3 which compelled the petitioner to file writ petition before this court which was registered as W.P.(C) No. 951 of 2015. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 10.01.2019 with a liberty to the petitioner to prefer a representation before the respondent no. 2 who was directed to consider the same and to come to a conclusion as to whether the petitioner was indeed entitled for payment of compensation as claimed by him and to pass a reasoned order within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the said order. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner made representation along with a copy of the order dated 10.01.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No. 951 of 2015 before the respondent no. 2 on 27.02.2019. Accordingly, Misc. Appeal No. 17 of 2019 was registered by the respondent no. 2, however vide impugned order dated 13.09.2019, the respondent no. 2 rejected the claim of the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition.