RAJMATA GYANI MAHARANI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application, the petitioners have prayed for a direction to the respondents to correctly prepare their Compensation Assessment Roll and to pay ad interim compensation in accordance with the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act and Rules framed thereunder.

(2.) THE petitioners ' main grievance is that in spite of several orders of this Court in different legal proceedings, the compensation in respect of the mines and minerals which were given in leases by them, has not been determined and ad interim compensation has not been paid to them. The further grievance is that the amount of compensation mentioned in the order dated 9.11.1997 passed by the Additional Compensation Officer, Dhanbad as contained in Annexure -5 is arbitrary and wholly without any basis. In Annexure -II of the said Annexure -5, total income of mines and minerals has been shown as Rs. 61,156.97 P and the amount of compensation payable as Rs. 2,44,631.88P or Rs. 3,00,000.00 , said to have been assessed on the basis of the verification report of the District Mines Officer, Dhanbad. The petitioners on the other hand, filed an application dated 20.6.1988 (Annexure -10 of the writ application) giving description of the leases of mines and minerals made in favour of different persons, by virtue of registered deeds. In the list as many as 54 lease deeds have been mentioned. In the said Annexure - 2, it has been shown that the said leases were taken into consideration in coming assessing the amount of compensation regarding the mines and minerals. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, who was earlier directed by this Court to dispose of the claim of the petitioners, in accordance with law, has passed a cryptic order dated 2.11.2004 which has been sought to be assailed by the petitioners by filing an application for amendment which was allowed and incorporated by order dated 16.12.2004.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that compensation in respect of the mines and minerals covered by the leased granted by the ex -landlord petitioners has not been legally determined till date. The same could not be controverted by the respondents by any material on record.