KANTI MAHANTY ROHINI Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner no. 1 is the wife of Late Kanti Mahanty Kumar Swami. Petitioners No.1's husband Late Kanti Mahanty Kumar Swami was the son of the recorded raiyat Kanti Mahanti Appa Rao in whose name lands contained in Plot nos. 574, 575 and 576 in Khata No.31, Mouza Asanbani, Thana no.325, P.S. Chandil, District Saraikella Kharsawan having an area of 1.16 acres were recorded. The land contained in Plot nos. 571, 572 and 573 in Khata No.169, Mouza Asanbani, Thana no.325, P.S. Chandil, District Saraikella Kharsawan having an area of 1.99 acres stood recorded in the name of grand -father of the husband of the petitioner no.1 namely Palki Rama Rao. These two parcels of land were acquired in Acquisition Proceedings No.70/1980 -81 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purposes of Swarnrekha Multipurpose Project. Petitioner no.2 is the vendee of petitioner no.1 to whom the aforesaid lands were sold through registered sale deed dated 18th June, 2007. These two petitioners have joined in the present proceedings seeking declaration that the entire land acquisition proceeding in connection with the aforesaid pieces of land has lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 on the grounds that compensation has not been paid to the land losers / awardee but admittedly was deposited in the Government Treasury and not in Court, possession whereof was though allegedly taken as per the stand of the respondents in their counter affidavit.

(2.) Both the writ petitioners had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.5106 of 2010 seeking release of the land in question in their favour on the ground that it was neither acquired for the Swarnrekha Multipurpose Project nor required by the State Government. They relied upon the letter dated 13th September 2007 obtained under Right to Information as per which a proposal for release of land was mooted. During pendency of the said writ petition an I.A. No. 4766 of 2014 was preferred seeking addition of a new prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ or declaration that the entire land acquisition proceeding in connection with the land involved in the said case had lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 taking the same plea that the compensation amount had been admittedly deposited in Government Treasury and not in Court. By order dated 12 th September 2014 a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Annexure -8) was pleased to refuse the addition of new prayer in the said writ petition holding that it would require the petitioners to plead and prove entirely different set of facts from the pleadings in the writ petition and it resultantly cannot be allowed as it would change the very nature of the said writ petition itself. It was however observed that the prayer which has been sought to be added by the petitioners, can be subject matter of a separate writ petition. The said writ petition was finally dismissed by a judgment dated 7th November, 2014 (Annexure -9 to the rejoinder affidavit). Petitioners preferred a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment passed in W.P.(C) No.5106/2010 but chose to withdraw the same as they had already filed a separate writ petition i.e. the present matter. The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 7nd February, 2015 in L.P.A. No.531 of 2014.

(3.) One additional fact to be taken note of is that the respondent - State has instituted a Title Suit bearing No.25/2011 for cancellation of the sale deed dated 18th June 2007 before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Seraikella. By the said sale deed petitioner no.1 had transferred the land in question in favour of the petitioner no.2.