KUMARI RATNAKAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dtd. 25/2/2020 (Annexure-15 to the writ petition) passed by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad- respondent no.4 in Misc. Case no.02 of 2019-20, whereby in pursuance of the order dtd. 22/8/2019 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.513 of 2016 the petitioner's request for payment of compensation with respect to acquisition of the land in question vide notification no.10/DLA/Dhan/ISM-66/13-530 dtd. 4/9/2013 in terms with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter to be referred as' the Act, 2013') has been rejected.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has the raiyati right over the land situated at Mouja Dhaiya, Mouja no.6, appertaining to Khata no.158, plot nos.4211, 4214 and 4224, , measuring an area of 08 decimals; Khata no.19, plot no.4196, measuring an area of 27 decimals; and Khata no.122, plot no.4221, measuring an area of 4 decimals. Further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the aforesaid land was acquired by the State Government vide aforesaid notification issued under the provisions of the Act, 2013 and possession of the same was also handed over to the beneficiary i.e. I.I.T. (I.S.M.), Dhanbad, yet the petitioner has not been paid any compensation. In support of the contention that effective possession of the said land is at present with I.I.T. (I.S.M.), Dhanbad, learned counsel refers to paragraph no.16 of the writ petition, wherein it has been stated that the respondents took possession of the land under acquisition in L.A. Case no.01 of 2012-13 and subsequently vide letter no.104 dtd. 20/2/2015 the same was handed over to I.I.T.(I.S.M.), Dhanbad and a certificate to that effect was also issued by the respondent no.4, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition.

(3.) It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the possession of the said land was handed over to the I.I.T. (I.S.M.), Dhanbad vide aforesaid land acquisition proceeding, the petitioner being the lawful owner is entitled for appropriate compensation. The impugned order dtd. 25/2/2020 passed by the respondent no.4 is illegal and unjustified and the petitioner is at least entitled for restoration of the land, as the said respondent has himself observed that the land acquisition proceeding initiated in terms with the notification issued in the year 2013 has lapsed on account of not declaring award within the stipulated period, since the said acquisition proceeding was made invoking the provision of Sec. 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act, 1894') treating the same as an urgent case of acquisition.