MADAN KARMAKAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 Sec. 83 (ii) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 on 18 th 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 20/11/6, 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 2/10/92, 7/3/92, 10/4/92 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. 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 27/2/12 and thereafter on 24/3/12, 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.