ANAND LAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 541 dated 20.07.2015 passed by the respondent no. 4 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition), whereby the claim of the petitioner with respect to the acquired land has been rejected on the ground that the same falls within the forest demarcated area, though the same is raiyati land exclusively belonging to the petitioner.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner earlier filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(C) No. 4626 of 2009 seeking direction upon the respondents to make payment of compensation along with solatium and interest thereon to him on account of acquisition of land measuring an area of 33 decimals out of Plot No. 1713/2108 of Khata No. 239, situated at Village-Ichagarh, District-East Singhbhum. This Court, vide order dated 04.02011, granted liberty to the petitioner to make fresh representation before the respondents who were directed to decide the claim of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such representation. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent no. 4, vide impugned order contained in Memo No. 541 dated 20.07.2015 (Annexure-7) to the writ petition) arbitrarily rejected the representation of the petitioner without considering the fact that the petitioner is the lawful owner of the land in question.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It has been averred in the counter-affidavit that any order of mutation or payment of rent by a person does not create or extinguish the right, title or interest over any land. It has further been stated that on verification of the land in question, it was found that in the map, there was no mention of land bearing Plot No. 2108 near Plot No. 1713, rather a plot bearing No. 1337/2108 has been mentioned. Moreover, Plot No. 2108 has been found to be falling within the demarcated forest area and as such, the respondent no. 4 rejected the claim of the petitioner for payment of compensation with respect to 33 decimals of land in Plot No. 1713/2108.