PRAFULLA KUMAR MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondent No. 2 to dispose of his petition filed praying relief under the provisions of Section 28(A) of the Land Acquisition Act. It has been stated that the lands of the petitioner along with others were acquired for the purpose of establishment of Bokaro Steel Plant. The compensation for acquisition of land was assessed and the petitioner was given very low amount of compensation. Aggrieved by the said low compensation, other similarly situated persons had preferred reference of their cases before the Land Acquisition Judge under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act against the award of compensation for the lands acquired for the same establishment at the same time. In the reference, award was made enhancing the amount of compensation. In view of the said enhanced compensation for the land of the similarly situated persons and the provisions contained under Section 28(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioner filed petition on 5.10.1990 and 7.7.1993 before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bokaro for re -determination of the amount of compensation. Receipt of which was acknowledged by the Office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer (S.L.A.O), but till date no decision has been taken. It has been stated that the case of similarly situated persons, who had preferred application under Section 28(A) of the said Act, were disposed of and the amount of enhanced compensation was paid to the respective persons, but the petitioner has been discriminated against and no order has been passed even after lapse of more than a decade.

(2.) A counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the State -respondents stating, inter alia, that no such application praying enhancement of compensation under Section 28(A) of the Land Acquisition Act has been received in the Office of S.L.A.O. and as such in absence of any such application there was no occasion for any consideration of the petitioner's claim/grievance.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials appearing on record. The petitioner has claimed that his land was acquired for the establishment of Bokaro Steel Plant, but he was not given adequate compensation of the land. It has been further stated that other similarly situated persons had preferred reference of their case before the Land Acquisition Judge and on reference the amount of compensation was enhanced. Section 28(A) of the Land Acquisition Act provides for payment of enhanced amount of compensation to such similarly situated persons. The said factual and legal position has not been disputed by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. The State -respondents on behalf of the S.L.A.0 has taken the stand that no such application was received in their office, whereas the petitioner has filed the receipt (Annexure -4) which prima facie goes to show that the petitioner's application was received as far back as in the year 1990 (though the same (Annexure -4) has been disputed by learned Counsel for the respondents). Even if the said receipt is disputed, other facts and the provisions of law being such, the claim of the petitioner deserves consideration by the competent authority. It has been submitted that the* Special Land Acquisition Officer is the competent authority to deal with such claim/grievance.