The High Court · 2024
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction) Contempt Case (Civil) No. 185 of 2024 Chandan Shekhar Nath Ganjhu, aged about 55 years, s/o late Dr. Triveni Nath Ganjhu, r/o village-Dahugutu, PO & PS-Khunti, District-Khunti ….....… Petitioner Versus
Legal Reasoning
1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sri Manish Ranjan, Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, PO: Dhurwa, PS: Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi 3. Sri Rameshwar Leyangi, Deputy Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, PO: Dhurwa, PS: Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi 4. Sri Lokesh Mishra, Deputy Commissioner, Khunti, PO, PS & District- Khunti 5. Sri Arvind Kumar, Additional Collector, Khunti, PO, PS & District- Khunti 6.Sri Aniket Sachan, Sub-Divisional Officer, Khunti, PO, PS & District- Khunti …. ... Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Petitioner For the State of Jharkhand : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate : Mr. R.K. Shahi, AC to SC(L&C)-I --------- Order No.4/Dated: 18th March 2024 This contempt case has been filed alleging willful and intentional violation of the order dated 24th August 2023 passed in L.P.A No.564 of 2015. 2. Before the writ Court, Notification dated 23rd December 2006 published in the daily newspaper namely, “Prabhat Khabar” on 11th January 2007 was challenged. Subsequently, I.A No. 2455 of 2012 was filed seeking quashing of communication dated 27th July 2012 and the said application was allowed vide order dated 11th September 2012. 3. The petitioner claims that he is the descendant of Bahor Ram Ganjhu. He asserts that he is unemployed and his only source of livelihood is the land which has been acquired through Notification dated 23rd December 2006. The petitioner when came to know about the aforesaid proposal for acquisition, approached the Sub-Divisional Officer, Khunti on 28th October 2005 objecting to the proposed acquisition. However, his 2 Contempt Case (Civil) No.185 of 2024 objection was not considered and the Notification dated 23rd December 2006 was published in the newspaper on 11th January 2007. Subsequently, a notice was published in the newspaper on 27th July 2012 directing the petitioner to receive compensation. 4. In W.P(C)No. 2622 of 2007, the writ Court held as under: “7. In so far as, challenge to notification dated 23.12.2006 is concerned, the petitioner has contended that he submitted representation dated 28.10.2005 to the Sub-Divisional Officer objecting to the proposed acquisition. In the objection dated 28.10.2005, the petitioner has given a description of the land which should have been acquired by the State Government. The description given in the said objection discloses land situated between Khunti Police Station and Post Office, land situated between pond and house of one Lakhna Mahto, land at Pipra Toli Garden etc. The respondents have taken a plea that other lands available were not suitable for construction of a hi-tech bus stand. The report dated 16.01.2008 of the Circle Officer discloses that the alternative plots suggested by the petitioner were not suitable and there was no other Gair Majurwa land which is not under dispute. The respondents have stated in the supplementary counter-affidavit that for construction of a bus stand in the District of Khunti, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi requisitioned land through letter dated 13.06.2006 and the Government granted sanction to the draft notification and declaration on 23.12.2006. The notification and declaration were published in the local newspaper on 22.01.2007 and it was published in Zila Gazette on 07.03.2007. It is asserted that acquisition of land pertaining to Plot No. 42, Khata No. 21, total area of 2.54 acres was sanctioned by Revenue Department vide letter dated 04.07.2007. The respondents have raised a plea that the subjective satisfaction of the Government is not open to judicial review. It appears that notices were issued under Section 9 to the petitioner and the petitioner received the same on 01.08.2007. The award was prepared on 10.01.2009 and thereafter, notices under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued to the petitioner. As noticed above, since the petitioner declined to receive compensation, a notice was issued in the daily newspaper on 27.07.2012. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the fact that the compensation to the petitioner has not been paid, the acquisition has lapsed, is liable to be rejected. The petitioner who has that declined compensation has not been paid to him and therefore, the acquisition would lapse. Reliance on decision in “Patasi Devi Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.” (supra) is thus, misplaced. In so far as, possession of the land in question is concerned, the respondents have asserted that they have taken possession of the land. It has further been disclosed that subsequently, a new District of Khunti has been created. The respondents have asserted that the proposed land is situated at a convenient place for construction of the bus stand. I am of the opinion that the objection dated 28.10.2005 stands rejected in the face of notification dated 23.12.2006. The contention that without initiating a proceeding for cancellation of Jamabandi with respect to the land mentioned in the report dated 16.01.2008 of receive compensation cannot contend to 3 Contempt Case (Civil) No.185 of 2024 the Circle Officer, the land in question should not have been acquired is misconceived. The petitioner cannot have a grievance if, without cancelling the Jamabandi for other lands, the State has decided to pay compensation to him. The construction of proposed hi-tech bus stand cannot be put on hold awaiting the out-come of an anticipated litigation. 8. Considering the above facts, I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.” In L.P.A No.564 of 2015, the Letters Patent Court observed as 5. under: “15. In the instant case, the acquisition of the land is for construction of a bus stand. Admittedly, a bus stand was already constructed in the town, but as per the counter of the State, the bus stand was not made operational as the same was constructed in a place which is not convenient for people, so it is not being utilized. 16. Further glaring aspect is that though the land was acquired in the month of December, 2006 but admittedly till date the new bus stand has not been made operational and even not fully constructed. The photographs produced before the Court today by the learned Addl. Advocate General clearly suggests that the construction has not yet been completed. There is no internal roads, no bus bay constructed and even the land has also not been leveled. The photographs of the bus stand are taken and kept on record. 17. After more than sixteen years of acquisition, it is a fact that the State could not complete the construction of the said bus stand and nor made it operational. This clearly suggests that there was no urgency for the acquisition of the land in question. 18. In absence of any urgency, Section 17 of the Act or even Section 17(4) of the Act could not have been resorted to. Mere tendering of compensation (though the same has not been accepted by the land owner) will have no bearing in this case, as we have concluded that invoking of urgency provision is bad, as there was no urgency at all to invoke Section 17 or Section 17(4) of the act by waiving Section 5A of the Act, which is a procedural safeguard to the land looser. This aspect has not been considered by the learned Single Judge. 19. In view of what has been held above, we are inclined to allow this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition is set aside. The acquisition notification and all consequent action thereto are set aside. 20. However, it is made clear that this judgment shall not preclude the competent authority for issuing fresh notification for taking steps to acquire the land and initiate a fresh proceeding of acquisition of land in question as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.” 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that no notification for acquiring the subject land has been issued. However, as the observation in paragraph no.19 would reveal, no mandamus has been issued by this Court and only a liberty has been granted to the State to acquire the subject land. 4 Contempt Case (Civil) No.185 of 2024 The petitioner is therefore at liberty to enjoy the subject property in the manner he desired, till it is acquired by the State. 7.
Decision
In view of the above, we do not find any reason to entertain this contempt case which is accordingly dismissed. (Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) sudhir