SANJIV KUMAR SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent No.3 to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to disposed of his application dtd. 5/11/2020 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) filed before the said respondent claiming payment of compensation in connection with Land Acquisition Case No. 64/2019-20 appertaining to Khata No. 27, Plot Nos. 141 and 107, Mouza-Koeridih, P.S-Jasidih, Thana No. 140, District-Deoghar, measuring an area of 0.04 Acre and 0.02 Acre respectively.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has the lawful title over Plot Nos. 107, 141 and 142 under Khata No 27, Mouza-Koeridih, Thana No. 140, District-Deoghar. The State Government vide notification dtd. 13/10/2020 acquired Plot Nos. 107 and 141 under Khata No. 27 in connection with Land Acquisition Case No. 64/2019-20. Plot No. 141 was purchased by Kumari Jaidurga Devi (the grandmother of the petitioner) by virtue of sale deed No. 05 dtd. 11/4/1944 whereas Plot No. 107 was purchased by Baijnath Prasad (the grandfather of the petitioner) by virtue of sale deed No. 03 dtd. 5/10/1942. The petitioner is their heir and successor and hence he has lawful claim for receiving compensation for acquisition of the aforesaid land in connection with Land Acquisition Case No. 64/2019-20 under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2013'). Though the petitioner appeared before the respondent No.3 on 5/11/2020, however, the said respondent without considering his application, orally rejected his claim and thereby he has also been deprived of taking alternative recourse in the matter. It is also submitted that the petitioner was informed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 that no claim for compensation was made with respect to Plot Nos. 107 and 141 under Khata No. 27. Such action of the respondent No.3 is thus highly arbitrary and illegal. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 stating inter alia that Land Acquisition Case No. 64/2019-20 was heard by the respondent No.3 on 5/11/2020 and after hearing the parties as well as considering the objections, the said respondent passed the order and disposed of the said land acquisition case. At the time of hearing the said case on 5/11/2020, no such application filed by the petitioner was available before the respondent No.3. However, after passing the order dtd. 5/11/2020 in the said land acquisition case, the petitioner filed an application dtd. 5/11/2020 claiming compensation before the said respondent without annexing any document with respect to his right, title and interest over the said land. It has further been averred in the said counter affidavit that the petitioner has got an alternative recourse under Sec. 64 of the Act, 2013 against the order dtd. 5/11/2020 passed by the respondent No.3.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. On bare perusal of the handwritten part of the order dtd. 5/11/2020 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.3, it appears that the said respondent while observing that no application from any raiyat with respect to the claim/objection relating to Khata No. 27, Plot Nos. 143, 142, 141 and 107 was received, called for a report from the respondent No.4 with regard to title of the said land. Thus, the order dtd. 5/11/2020 does not indicate that Land Acquisition Case No. 64/2019-20 with respect to the aforesaid land including the land involved in the present writ petition i.e. Plot Nos. 107 and 141 was disposed of, rather a report was called from the respondent No.4 with regard to title of the said land. Hence, the stand taken by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the counter affidavit that Land Acquisition Case No. 64/2019-20 was disposed of on 5/11/2020, is factually incorrect. Moreover, since no final order has been passed by the respondent No.3 in the said land acquisition case, there is no question that the petitioner would take recourse of Sec. 64 of the Act, 2013.