DILIP KUMAR GHOSHAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for making payment of the compensation for acquisition of land situated in Mouza Chas, Thana Chas, Thana No. 30, Khata No. 752, Plot No. 7788 having an area 16.50 acres out of total area of 31.85 acres on account of the fact that the land had been acquired by the Department of Forest, Government of Bihar/Jharkhand long back and compensation for the said acquisition of land has not been paid to the petitioner till date as per the prevalent law. It is the case of the petitioner that he is grandson of Late Kirti Chandra Ghoshal, in whose name the land was originally recorded and after his death and the death of his three sons the petitioner is the sole heir of the said property as the other two sons of Late Kirti Chandra Ghoshal had died issueless. It is further submitted that the aforesaid land was acquired by the Forest Department for forestry and Kirti Chandra Ghoshal was a Raiyat of the said land, who applied for compensation before the Forest Settlement Officer, Dhanbad and on 4th June, 1957. He was directed to appear with relevant documents on 15th June, 1957 failing which it was indicated that the decision shall be made ex parte. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the averments made in the writ petition stated that by virtue of a compromise petition filed on 31.3.1925 the settlement of the plot in question was resolved in between two parties in a proceeding before the Court of learned MunsifI, Purulia and the title over the said land in favour of Late Kirti Chandra Ghoshal was made absolute. He further submits that the said Kirti Chandra Ghoshal died in the year 1970 and his sons Bhupen Ghoshal died in the year 1977 and Harendra Nath Ghoshal died in the year 1982 and thereafter Jageshwar Ghoshal and daughter Rewa Rani Ghoshal died in march, 1997. The petitioner is the son of Bhupen Ghoshal. It is further stated that a Title Suit No. 57/18 of 1969/1974 was instituted by Harendra Nath Ghoshal and others Vs. Tara Chandra Taparia in the court of Munsif of Baghmara at Dhanbad wherein certain reliefs were claimed in respect of Khas possession of the land described in schedule being the same property. The said suit was decreed by learned Munsif on 31.03.1975 in favour of the plaintiff declaring his Khas possession of Schedule D Lands described therein and the defendant was directed to remove the structure and put the plaintiffs in possession. Thereafter, the Title Appeal No. 29 of 1975 was filed by Tara Chandra Taparia in the court of 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, which was dismissed on 8th February, 1977. Thereafter, Miscellaneous Case no. 8 of 1977 was filed for restoration of the said Title Appeal, which was also dismissed on 14th July, 1977 by 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dhanbad. The petitioner by relying upon the averments made in Annexures to the writ petition, submits that the rent receipts were issued by the Circle Officer, Chas up to the year 198687 for an area of 9 acres 20 decimals for the said plot no. 7778, Khata no. 752. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that one Mrs. Rewa Rani Ghoshal daughter of Late Kirti Chandra Ghoshal filed an application on 17th March, 1994 before the District Forest Officer, Dhanbad stating that her ancestors in the year 1957 had produced the entire documents relating to the acquisition of land bearing Khata no. 752, Plot no. 7788 and she claimed compensation for acquisition of the said land. Thereafter the said application was followed in the year 1997 and certain correspondence also took place between District Forest Officer, Dhanbad and the Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad.

(2.) ON the basis of the aforesaid averments, it is submitted that the petitioner being heir of late Kirti Chandra Ghoshal, was entitled to compensation for acquisition of the land in the year 1957 by the Forest Department.

(3.) I find no merit in the writ petition and otherwise also the relief claimed has been raised at a highly belated stage after almost 50 years. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed.