NAGESHWAR MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer that the Land Acquisition Officer, Deoghar be directed to make reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the dispute relating to the apportionment of the compensation amount in connection with Land Acquisition Case No. 6 of 2001-02 pending before the Court of L.A. Officer, Deoghar. The reason for seeking such prayer are that in relation to land in question the State of Jharkhand had initiated acquisition process for construction of railway project i.e. Deoghar-Dumka Railway line for the area appertaining to Jamabandi No. 12 of Mauza Alkoi, Thana No. 924 under P.S. Mohanpur, Subdivision and District-Deoghar. It is the contention of the petitioner that he and the other private respondents are descendents of recorded tenant Ruplal Yadav who died in the year 1950 leaving behind 4 sons. The petitioner is the grandson of one of the sons of Ruplal Mahto namely Chano Mahto. It is the further case of the petitioner that the private respondent No. 4 Kalia Devi is the daughter of one Chunari Devi, who was the daughter of Jhaksu Mahto and he predeceased the original tenant, Ruplal Mahto in the year 1934 itself. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said Kaila devi, therefore, does not inherit any right in the property of Ruplal Mahto as her maternal grand-father and maternal great grand-father died before coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. During the course of acquisition objections were raised by the petitioner but Land Acquisition Officer prepared statement vide Annexure-5, wherein certain compensation has also been apportioned in the name of Kalia Devi. However, by referring to Annexure-4, order sheet date 20.11.2002 in L.A. Case No. 6 of 2001, it has been submitted that disbursement of compensation has been kept pending by the order recorded at serial No. 4 having objection Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 15 and 20 with respect to Jamabandi No. 12. Petitioner has apprehension that the amount would be disbursed without proper apportionment of the compensation and wrongly in favour of Kaliya Devi and in that view of the matter, petitioner is seeking for a direction upon the L.A. Officer to make reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand submitted that estimated compensation of the awardees have been prepared, sanctioned and published jointly in favour of the persons as per elaborate chart contained at Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit. The petitioner's objections dated 21.11.2002 along with other was responded by the private respondent-Kalia Devi in relation to the apportionment of the compensation and after perusal of the same, order dated 28.11.2002 has been passed contained at Annexure-E to the counter-affidavit. The compensation apportionment in favour of Kaila Devi has been justified by the State on the basis of documents produced by her in respect of possession and title i.e. in the recent survey 'Tasdik Parcha' as well as in the 'Dhakhal Kiyari' i.e., Holder of land in question, the name of respondent No. 4 Kalia Devi was found. However, counsel for the petitioner also submitted that since survey settlement operations has not achieved finality, much importance may not be attached to such documents. Counsel for the respondent-State further submits that the petitioner has not made any claim for reference of the dispute under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, 1894 and, therefore, the petition dated 31.5.2003 was rejected by the order dated 10.6.2003. However it appears from the statement made in para 11 of the counter-affidavit that the matter can be referred under Section 30 of the L.A. Act, if directed.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent-Kalia Devi has justified the order passed by the Respondent-L.A. Officer stating that the apportionment of compensation has been made on the basis of document submitted by the said Kalia Devi in respect of her title and possession over the land in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the objection petition for reference have already been made before the L.A. Officer vide Annexure-3. In any case the apportionment of the compensation has finally not been done.