Latehar (Jharkhand) v. 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A.No. 239 of 2020 Ram Nath Soni, aged about-75 years, Son of Late Narsingh Soni, resident of Village-Seregara, P.O.:-Seregara, P.S.:-Latehar, … …Appellant District:- Latehar (Jharkhand). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 2. Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, P.O. & P.S.-Chatra, District- Chatra. 3. Circle Officer, Tandwa, P.O. & P.S.- Tandwa, District- Chatra. 4. General Manager, National Thermal Power Corporation at Tandwa, P.O. & P.S.- Tandwa, District-Chatra. …Respondents ---------- CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD : THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND For the Appellant For N.T.P.C. For the Resp.-State : Mr. Mithilesh Singh, G.A. IV. : Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, Advocate. : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate. : Mr. Anup Kumar Agrawal, A.C. to G.A.IV. ----------- Order No. 08/dated 02.05.2023 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad J: I.A.No. 4166 of 2023 The instant Interlocutory Application has been filed for substituting the name of the legal heir of the appellant who died on 24.01.2023. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has died on 24.01.2023 leaving behind her husband as legal heir which has been mentioned in paragraph No. 6 of the Interlocutory Application.
Legal Reasoning
Learned Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that legal heir of the appellant be substituted in place of deceased appellant. 2 Learned Counsel for the respondents does not dispute the submission. Let the name of legal heir, as has been mentioned in paragraph No. 6 of the Interlocutory Application, be substituted in place of deceased appellant.
Decision
Accordingly, I.A. No. 4166 of 2023 stands disposed of. I.A.No. 793 of 2021 This Interlocutory Application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 545 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. Heard the appellant. Having regard to the averments made in the application and submission made on behalf of the appellant, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented from sufficient cause in filing the appeal within the period of limitation. As such, the delay of 545 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned. Accordingly, I.A.No. 793 of 2021 stands allowed. I.A.No. 7704 of 2022 The instant Interlocutory Application has been filed for seeking amendment in the prayer portion of the memo of appeal as also the paragraph No.1 of the payer portion to the effect that the order passed by the Review Court in Civil Review No. 35 of 2019 since has also been challenged in the instant appeal, therefore, the leave has been sought for to confine the prayer for assailing the order passed in the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 4409 of 2017. 3 After having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the reason assigned in the instant Interlocutory Application, the same is hereby allowed. In consequent thereof the instant memo of appeal is confined to the order dated 02.01.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4409 of 2017. Accordingly, I.A. No. 7704 of 2022 stands disposed of. L.P.A.No. 239 of 2020 The writ petitioner being aggrieved with the action of the respondent in not making payment of compensation in lieu of the demolition of the house situated over the land which has been acquired has approached to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 4409 of 2017 and the learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the fact that no document has been brought to establish that there was a house existing over the land in question at the time of acquisition, has dismissed the writ petition, which is the subject matter of instant appeal. 2. Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the fact about the house having not there in the land which has been acquired is absolutely incorrect and no proper consideration has been given by the admitted fact, since, it would be evident from annexure-1 that the house was there and as such the writ petitioner is entitled for the compensation due to the demolition of the house situated over the land which was acquired. 4 3. The further submission has been made by making reference of the order dated 31.01.2020 passed by the Review Court in the Civil Review No. 35 of 2019 wherein the fact about availability of house on the day when the land was acquired has also found to be correct. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant on the basis of the aforesaid ground has submitted that the order passed by learned Single Judge is not sustainable in the eye of law hence the same is fit to be quashed and set aside by allowing the instant appeal. 5. While on the other hand the learned Counsel appearing for the State as also the learned Counsel appearing for the N.T.P.C. have jointly submitted that it is incorrect on the part of the appellant to take the ground that the house was there on the day when land was acquired, since, no substantive evidence, rather no document has been produced before the learned Single Judge even after granting ample opportunity to bring on record the document to establish the fact that the house was there on the day when land was acquired but no supplementary affidavit has been filed as would appear from the order dated 09.08.2018 which has been taken note by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to suffer from error in absence of any valid document to substantiate the availability of house over the land in question the day when it was acquired. 6. It has further been contended by reverting the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant by making reference of the 5 order passed by the Review Court, according to the learned Counsel for the respondent that no finding can be said to be in favour of the appellant, which would be evident from paragraph 4 of the order passed by the Review Court dated 31.01.2020 wherein the Review has been dismissed by taking note of the fact that in spite of the ample opportunity granted to bring the document to establish the availability of house the day when the land was acquired, but, no supplementary affidavit was filed, therefore, the Review Court was of the view that since on that ground the writ petition was dismissed, therefore, there was no reason to review the aforesaid order. 7. Mr. Pallav learned Counsel for the N.T.P.C. has submitted that the subsequent report upon which the reliance is being placed by the appellant is not fit to be considered, rather, the document which was available on the day when the award was prepared is to be taken into consideration and admittedly therein no document of availability of the house over the land in question was brought before the authority who are in sesin of the matter while preparing the award for the purpose of disbursement of the compensation. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondent, in the backdrop of the aforesaid fact, has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from no error and hence the instant appeal is fit to be dismissed. 9. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the document available on record as also the finding 6 recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. This Court, after having appreciated the argument advanced on behalf of the parties and the material available on record, has found therefrom that the whole issue agitated on behalf of the appellant for issuance of a direction for payment of compensation in lieu of demolition of house over the land which was acquired by the State to be handed over to the N.T.P.C. 10. The contention of the appellant that the day when land was acquired the house was there and hence as per the rehabilitation policy of N.T.P.C. the appellant is entitled for the compensation also for demolition of the house but the same having not been extended hence the writ petition was filed. 11. It appears from the material available on record that the enquiry report has been appended to the writ petition as under Annexure-2/1 as also in the counter-affidavit the report of the Revenue Karamchari are also there showing therein that there was no availability of house the day when the land was acquired. It has been stated in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State that the house which is now being shown to be available on the land is after the acquisition of the land and after passing of the award. 12. It appears that the reports submitted by the authority, on one report the house is not being shown and in another report house is being shown but the same is after preparation of the award. 13. The question arises that the amount of compensation on account of acquisition of land of the house situated over the land 7 sought to be acquired is to be brought to the notice of the authority who was in seisin of the matter for the purpose of deciding entitlement for compensation in lieu of acquisition of land. 14. Admittedly, herein no document or even no pleading was taken by the appellant before the Land Acquisition Officer that the appellant is also entitled for compensation in lieu of the demolition of house situated over the land in question. 15. However, when the plea was taken about availability of the house over the land in question as was agitated before the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge has granted opportunity to bring documents as would appear from the order dated 09.08.2018, for ready reference the same is being referred herein, “Counsel for the petitioner submits that the compensation for acquisition of land has been paid, but the compensation for the house, which was standing over the land in question, has not been paid, though the house has been demolished. After going through the record, I find that the award is of the year 2010 but there is no document on record, which suggests that there was a house standing over the land in question, which was acquired in the year 2010. All the documents are of the year 2015, 2016 and 2017. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks’ time to file supplementary affidavit to bring on record necessary documents, which would suggest that at the time of acquisition of land, there was a house standing over the land in question. List this case after two weeks.” 16. But even in spite of the opportunity having been given by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 09.08.2018 no document was produced in support of her claim. 8 17. Further, the Review has been filed for review of order dated 02.01.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4409 of 2017. 18. The learned Review Court has again appreciated the argument and by taking the reason assigned while dismissing the writ petition i.e., no document since was produced before the writ court basis upon which the writ petition, since was dismissed, as such, there is no reason to review the aforesaid order. However, the aforesaid finding at paragraph 4 by the Review Court dated 31.01.2020 passed in Civil Review No.35 of 2019 has not been assailed in view of I.A.No. 7704 of 2022. 19. This Court after taking into consideration the aforesaid fact and coming back to the order passed by the learned Single Judge is of the view that the finding so recorded holding the writ petitioner not entitled for the compensation due to demolition of house cannot be said to be incorrect in absence of any valid document coupled with the fact that no ground has been made out at the time of preparation of award by the Land Acquisition Officer, the competent authority. 20. Accordingly, in our considered view, instant appeal lacks merit and hence dismissed. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Subhash Chand, J.) P.K.S./AFR