PRAHLAD MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Shresth Gautam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BCCL and Mr. Anil Kumar, the learned AC to SC (Mines)-I appearing on behalf of the State.

(2.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for a direction to prohibit the respondent-BCCL from using the land of the present petitioners. It is further prayed for making payment of compensation and further prayer is made for consideration of the representation.

(3.) Mr. Shresth Gautam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the ancestor of the present petitioners were recorded khatiyani raiyat of Mouza-Chandrabad, Mauza No.159, Khata No.26, Plot No.17 area 5.38 acres and Plot No.18, area 34 decimal. He further submits that the petitioners are the legal heirs and are currently in occupation of the aforesaid land. He submits that the petitioners are carrying agricultural activities on the land in question. He further submits that without acquiring the land of the present petitioners, the respondents, specifically BCCL are now trying to take over the land for its excavation activities on the land of the present petitioners. He further submits that due to this act the agricultural land of the petitioners are being deteriorated. He further submits that they were filed the detailed representation before the Deputy Commissioner. By way of referring Annexure-3 he further submits that the respondent-BCCL informed the petitioners that the land in question was acquired by way of L.A. Case No.55/60-61 and compensation thereof was paid to the tune of Rs.2,89,398.04. He submits that on examining L.A. No.50 of 60-61 it transpires that the plot no.17 and 18 were not acquired in L.A. Case No.55/60-61. He further submits that the letter dated 06.09.2013 of the Land Acquisition Officer is erroneous as the inadequate payment to the tune of Rs.1,88,102.46 was only paid. He further submits that he has also lodged FIR in which investigation is also going on. He submits that by way of referring paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit of the State, he submits that the original records with regard to the L.A. Case No.55/60- 61 is not available with the Dhanbad district.