NAGESHWAR RAM, SON OF LATE BARHAN DUSADH, VILLAGE Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, PROJECT BHAWAN, DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By Court: Heard counsels for the parties.

(2.) These four petitioners came before this Court alleging unauthorized construction over portion of Plot No. 520, under Khata No. 138, Plot No. 527 under Khata No. 129 and Plot No. 522 under Khata No.26 situate at Mouza Ramgarh seeking interference of this Court and/or in the alternative for payment of compensation in lieu thereof. The petitioners independently claim title to the pieces of land on the basis of the statements made at paragraphs 5 to 11 relying upon photocopy of Khatian of the relevant Khata numbers of the year 1908 in the name of the original land holder through whom they claim descendance through independent family trees. Copy of the Genealogy of one Burwa Seikh was also annexed at Annexure-5. They had also alleged at paragraph-13 that the lands in question have not been acquired in any proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act nor any compensation paid. Through supplementary affidavit filed on 13th Jan., 2012 they enclosed a document provided under Right to Information Act being letter no. 426/2012 dated 10th May, 2012 issued by the District Animal Husbandry Officer, Hazaribagh which inter-alia gave the following information:-

(3.) These petitioners thereafter filed their response to the first counter affidavit of the State on 01st April, 2013 enclosing a judgment dated 18th Dec., 1931 in Title Suit No. 207/1929 rendered by the Court of Additional Sub-Judge, Civil Court, Hazaribagh. The suit was instituted on 02nd June 1929. Petitioners claimed that the acquisition undertaken in terms of Sec. 50 of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act on the application of Kumar Kamakshya Narain Singh in Case No.1/1926-27 in respect of several plots of land which included Plot Nos. 522, 527 and 520 were declared to be null and void being collusive document and not binding on the plaintiffs namely Shahdul Mian and others. Petitioners in their reply filed on 27th Jan., 2014 to the supplementary counter affidavit of respondents dated 23 Jan., 2014 however, accepted that the areas mentioned in Plot Nos. 520, 526 and 527 were acquired to the extent of 56 decimals and 5 decimals respectively in the later two plots in L.A. Case No. 6/1940-41 vide notification dated 29th Oct., 1940 part of the counter affidavit of the respondents at page-79 of the records.