SHAMBHU SARDAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder direction has been sought for, for restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful physical possession of the petitioner over their respective land in question as the same is without authority of law, with a further direction to deal with the case of the petitioner in light of the provision of Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (The Act, 2013), since according to the petitioner even accepting that the land has been acquired but the compensation has not yet been paid, therefore, the case of the petitioner will come under the fold of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

(2.) It is the brief facts of the case of the petitioner as per the pleading made in the writ petition is that the petitioner being residents of village Asangi, District Seraikella-Kharsawan and the residents of the said village has been subjected to different land acquisition proceedings even though their lands are fit for agricultural purpose and the land was acquired for setting up industrial area which is presently known as Adityapur Industrial Area. The land was acquired by the respondent authorities for setting up the Regional Institute of Technology which is at present known as National Institute of Technology at Adityapur.

(3.) Mr. Parth S.A. Swaroop Pati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the action taken by the respondent authorities for commencing the demarcation work about the land in question is nothing but an arbitrary exercise since they are in peaceful possession of the land and even if the land has been acquired since they are in possession and the amount of compensation has not been paid, therefore, after coming into effect of the Act, 2013 which contains the provision under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 for giving a declaration with respect to initiation of the proceeding under the provision of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, will be vitiated and a fresh proceeding under the Act, 2013 would be initiated but having not done so the demarcation work started by the respondent authorities de-hors the provision of the Act, 2013.