The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. (Civil) Case No. 255 of 2022 Nishikant Dubey ... ... Versus ... ... Petitioner 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Union of India Amitabh Kant, Secretary, Planning Commission now known as NITI Aayog, Government of India, New Delhi Rajiv Bansal, Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation, New Delhi Sanjeev Kumar, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Airport Authority of India, New Delhi Capt: S.P Sinha, Nodal Officer-cum-Flying Operation In-charge, Civil Aviation Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi Vandana Dadel, Secretary, Civil Aviation Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi State of Jharkhand Shivnandu Bhusan Pandey Navendu Bhushan Pandey 7. 8. 9. 10. Kanchan Devi 11. Urmila Devi 12. Chandrakant Pandey 13. Ajay Pandey 14. Gangadhar Pandey 15. Manikant Pandey 16. Shivshankar Pandey 17. Director General of Civil Aviation, New Delhi … … ... Opposite Parties With W.P.(C) No. 4032 of 2022 Nawendu Bhushan Pandey Shivendu Bhushan Pandey Kanchan Devi Ajay Pandey Gangadhar Pandey 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Manikant Pandey 7. 8. 9. 10. Laxmi Kant Pandey 11. Shivshankar Pandey Chandrakant Pandey Jaykant Pandey Tarakanat Pandey ... ... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar 3. The Sub-divisional Officer, Deoghar 4. The Block Development Officer, Mohanpur, Deoghar 5. The Chief Executive Officer of Deoghar, Municipal Corporation, Deoghar 6. Airports Authority of India through Airport Director, Deoghar Airport Ltd., Deoghar 7. Director General of Civil Aviation, New Delhi. … … ... Respondents 2. CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J. SRI ANANDA SEN, J. For the Petitioners: For the UOI: For the State: For the DMC: 23/Dated: 20.12.2023 --------- Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, Advocate Mr. Prashant Pallav, Dy.SGI Ms. Shivani Jaluka, A.C. to Dy SGI Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G. Mr. Shashank Saurav, A.C. to G.P.-III Mr. Vijay Shanker Jha, Advocate --------- Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court passed the following, (Per, Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)
Decision
ORDER By filing this writ petition, the residents of village Bhitiya, P.O. and P.S.-Kunda, District Deoghar, have prayed for issuance of following writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions: - “(A) For quashing of notices dated 13/8/2022 issued vide memo no. 526, 527, 528, 529, 529, 530 and 531 by the Block Development Officer, Mohanpur, District Deoghar (Annexure-1 series) For issuing a direction to the respondents, to not disturb the (B) possession of present petitioner’s land/houses situated at village- Bhitiya, P.O. & P.S. Kunda, District Deoghar as per notices issued by the Block Development Officer, Mohanpur, District-Deoghar. For issuing a direction to the respondents to not take action in (C) pursuance 526, issued 527,528,529,529,530 and 531 by the Block Development Officer, Mohanpur, District-Deoghar dated 13/8/22 till the final decision of the writ petition. vide memo notices no. of And For (D) direction/directions as your lordship may deem fit.” issuance of any other appropriate order/orders, Their grievances are that without acquiring the land, the respondents-authorities are proposing to demolish part of their buildings, especially the top portion of the building for smooth operation of the Deoghar Airport. In a separate W.P.(PIL) No. 5150 of 2013, as per Order No. 18, dated 14.09.2018, a Division Bench presided by the then Chief Justice directed that the work of the peripheral facilities be completed within the next date, i.e., 25th 3. November, 2019. However, as the peripheral development could not be completed within the stipulated period, the people’s representative representing the Godda constituency in the Parliament filed a contempt against the respondents, i.e., the officers of the State Government in various departments. Both the cases, the writ petition as well as the contempt application have been tagged together and are being taken up on different dates. In course of hearing, since the construction and operation of the Deoghar Airport is necessary because of the fact that Deoghar happens to be the city of deity Baidyanath, one of the 12 Jyotirlingam, and it is a major religious tourist destination together with the fact that the emotional feeling of the petitioners in the writ petition is also involved, we made an attempt to mediate the dispute. However, the Mediators appointed by the JHALSA did not reach to a definite conclusion. Thereafter, the Court directed that a survey knowing Assessor-cum-Valuer be deputed to survey the area and fix/calculate the amounts to be paid to the persons affected, whose buildings are likely to be affected by the peripheral development. Be it stated here that because of the height of the buildings standing in the line of the runway there is certain problems in landing of aircrafts in the Deoghar Airport, especially during the night time and that is the reason, the airport authority wants that certain portion of the buildings standing in the line of the airstrip/runway should be removed to facilitate proper landing of airplanes on the runway and for proper plying of aircrafts. The Valuer-cum-Loss Assessor calculated the losses that would sustained by the petitioners in the writ petition and has submitted the report, which is annexed to the contempt 4. application as per the supplementary counter affidavit of respondent no. 4 dated 05.09.2023. We have carefully examined the calculations made by the Assessor-cum-Valuer and find that it has been done in accordance with the value of that area and the value of the property to be lost by the petitioners. However, the said valuation has not accepted by two of the petitioners, i.e., petitioner no. 2-Shivendu Bhushan Pandey and petitioner no. 5-Gangadhar Pandey. The other petitioners are ready and willing to accept the value that has been assessed by the Loss Assessor. In our considered opinion, though the assessment has been made in accordance with the value of property that will be damaged or removed from the site. There is no solatium for the loss sustained by the petitioners with respect to loss of any future prospect of constructing any further loss due to impossibility of having any further upward construction. In that view of the matter, having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the value that has been calculated by the Valuer-cum-Loss Assessor should be increased by 25 per cent as a rule of thumb. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the petitioner in the contempt application, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India and learned counsel for the Deoghar Municipal Corporation, agreed to the aforesaid proposal. However, learned counsel for the State, namely, Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned A.C. to learned A.G., would submit that any order that the Court passes would be complied by the State of Jharkhand. With such observations, we hereby, dispose of the writ application holding that the petitioners are entitled to the compensation as calculated by the Valuer-cum-Loss Assessor plus 25 5. per cent on the same. The money should be paid to the petitioners in the writ petition within a period of one month, hence and then the demolition work should start. Since W.P. (PIL) No. 5150 of 2013 out of which the contempt application arises, has already been disposed of and since the matter is being resolved today by virtue of this order, we do not find any reason to continue with the contempt proceedings, which is accordingly dropped. There shall be no orders as to costs. All pending interim applications stands disposed of. Let a free copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned Associate Counsel to learned Advocate General, appearing for the State. (Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.) (Ananda Sen, J.) APK/VK