Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22639 of 2011 ====================================================== Ram Prasad Tanti S/O Hari Tanti R/O Village- Bagandar, Post - Bishanpur, P.S.- Khaira, District- Jamui 2. Ganga Prasad Modi S/O Boran Modi R/O Village- Bojayat, Post- Murbaro, P.S.- Khaira, District- Jamui .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through Secretary Minor Irrigation Department, Bihar, Patna 2. The District Magistrate (Collector), Jamui 3. The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Bhagalpur 4. The Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, Bhagalpur 5. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Jhajha, Jamui 6. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Jamui 7. The Block Development Officer, Khaira, Jamui 8. The Circle Officer, Khaira, Jamui .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mrs. Poonam Singh For the Respondents : Mr. Bijay Kumar,A.C. to G.P.20 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA ORAL ORDER 15 31-10-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The writ petition had been originally filed to quash the tender notice dated 27.6.2011 with regard to item No.8 relating to construction of Chhotkijur Check Dam (Aahar) issued by the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division , Jhajha (Jamui) and further to direct the respondents to rehabilitate the petitioners before construction of the said Check Dam as the lands of the petitioners would be flooded. The alternative prayer of the
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.22639 of 2011 (15) dt.31-10-2013 2 petitioners was to grant adequate compensation for the loss and damages to be caused to the petitioners’ agricultural land with the trees if the said Dam is being constructed. It is the admitted stand of the parties that during the pendency of the writ application the said Check Dam has already been constructed and, therefore, the only relief prayed for by the petitioner which can be considered is with regard to the grant of compensation. From the very beginning the stand of the respondents has been to show one way or the other that no damage would be caused to the land of the petitioners in view of the technical report with respect to the Dam in question, and the inspection report dated 27.5.2012 of the Chief Engineer, Minor Water Resources Department, Bhagalpur and the specific stand is that there is no possibility of the lands of the petitioners being flooded by the completion of the said project. Thereafter on the directions of this Court from time to time various inspection reports have come in which it is ultimately accepted in the report dated 1.2.2013 of the Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger that at least three plots of land including Plot Nos. 664, 653 and 663 would be affected to the extent of 0.548 Acre. Again in the report of the District Magistrate dated 16.4.2013, it is stated that 13 decimals out of 15 Patna High Court CWJC No.22639 of 2011 (15) dt.31-10-2013 3 decimals of land of the petitioners in plot No.651 was part of the catchment area. A further joint inspection was made by the Chief Engineer, Executive Engineer and the Assistant Engineer on 26.9.2013 on the basis of the order dated 1.7.2013 of this Court to file a report after the monsoon season is over which should indicate as to what is the level of the water in the catchment area which has accumulated in the monsoon season and whether the plot of the petitioners has been affected or not. In the said joint report it is stated that there was water in the catchment area and in the disputed plots of the petitioners but a stand has been taken that the water has been stored by the villagers for the future use because Jamui district is a drought prone area and the reason for accumulation of water is on account of blocking the Pyne by the villagers for storing the water. There is also a stand in the counter affidavit of the respondents that land of plot No.651 was recorded as Gairmazarua Izaredar showing the names of the petitioners and the nature of the land has been shown as Nala and therefore it is a matter of enquiry as to how the said land recorded as Nala could have been settled with the petitioners. The petitioners have also filed a supplementary affidavit today bringing on record the photographs of the lands of the Patna High Court CWJC No.22639 of 2011 (15) dt.31-10-2013 4 petitioners to show that the entire lands of the petitioners as claimed by them have been submerged in water. It is evident from the joint inspection report that the apprehension expressed by the petitioners at the time the writ petition was filed in December, 2011 has come out to be true and with the construction of the Chhotki Jur Check Dam (Aahar) the lands of the petitioners have become submerged. The earlier report of the Chief Engineer has thus been shown to be false by the actual state of affairs on the basis of the joint inspection which has been conducted at the end of the monsoon. The statement in the joint report that had the villagers not obstructed the Pyne for storing the water for future use, as the district of Jamui is a drought prone area, it would not have caused so much damage to the land of the petitioners is only noticed to be rejected. When the Chhotki Jur Check Dam (Aahar) was constructed by the governmental authorities and the villagers had obstructed the Pyne, it is the duty of the respondent authorities to ensure that the same is not used to the detriment of any person like the petitioner. If the respondents have allowed the villagers to obstruct the Pyne so as to submerge the lands of the petitioners then it seriously affects the rights of the petitioners and, therefore, the petitioners would certainly be entitled to get compensation. Patna High Court CWJC No.22639 of 2011 (15) dt.31-10-2013 5 Thus, in my view, the writ petition must succeed. It is, accordingly, allowed. The respondents are directed to compensate the petitioners for their lands which have been affected on account of the construction of Chhotki Jur Check Dam (Aahar). So far as Plot No.651 is concerned, it would be open to the respondents to make a fair and just enquiry and if the settlement has been made in favour of the petitioners in accordance with law which according to the petitioners is about 44-45 years back then it shall not be open to them to deny the petitioners the compensation for the damage caused to them with respect to the said plot also. (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J) V.P.Sinha/-