STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. NASIRUDDIN ANSARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Considering the huge delay of 1587 days in preferring the instant memo of appeal on the part of the State, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.09.2018 read with order dated 01.10.2018 directed the Chief Secretary to file an affidavit on certain points.

(2.) Two affidavits have been filed by the Chief Secretary, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi, the first one dated 25.01.2019, which is rather voluminous one and the second one on 15.02.2019. Based on the first affidavit, statement has been made at para 10 of the second affidavit to the effect that no erring officer could be identified for the delay in preferring the appeal. State is aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 15.04.2008 primarily for two reasons as canvassed by the learned counsel for the State: (i) that the learned Single Judge failed to address on the main prayer of the writ petitioners which sought quashing of an order of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad whereby a long standing jamabandi in the name of the ancestors of the writ petitioners was cancelled; (ii) without adjudicating on the first prayer the learned Single Judge directed the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad to pay the amount of compensation to the petitioners forthwith, if there is no other legal impediment within the stipulated period with a condition of payment of interest in default of payment apart from statutory interest.

(3.) This was a prayer made apparently in I.A. No.290 of 2008 during pendency of the writ petition. Another Interlocutory Application being I.A. No.938 of 2008 was also preferred by the petitioners to bring on record further developments like the decision of appeal and acquisition of land by the respondents. Learned counsel for the State has taken pains to explain the delay as worked out from the detail supplementary affidavit of the Chief Secretary dated 25.01.2019 which refers to a report of Four Men Committee constituted by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad on complaints receipt from number of persons with respect to the land acquired in mouza- Bhelatand (Thana No.89) for construction of Water Treatment Plant (under Dhanbad Water Supply Project). He has also referred to an inquiry report by seven members committee, another Departmental Inquiry Committee under the Chairmanship of Special Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms which examined the report of Four Men Committee and other complaints in the matter and thereafter sought legal opinion from the office of the learned Advocate General for preferring an appeal against the impugned judgment.