The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.4679 of 2017 ------ 1. Gouri Shankar Karmali S/o late Janki Karmali 2. Taro Devi W/o late Jhanu Gorayat 3. Tikku Karmali S/o late Bhadia 4. Ajay Munda S/o Late Ruplal Munda 5. Haridas Munda S/o Late Ramlal Munda 6. Ganesh Sao S/o Late Sohan Sao 7. Somra Munda S/o Late Vikol Munda 8. Ramesar Munda S/o Late Bishun Munda 9. Kalyan Munda S/o Late Bisun Munda Award no.-22 Award no.-02 Award no.-07 Award no.-08 Award no.-09 Award no.-11 Award no.-12 Award no.-17 Award no.-19 10. Pandit Sao @ Harindar Sahu Award no.-20 S/o Late Jagarnath Sao 11. Dhane Munda S/o Late Rajkumar Munda Award no.-26 12. Pato Devi @ Patwa Devi Award no.-29 W/o Late Sarju 13. Chun@Chunnilal Karmali Award no.-30 S/o Late Rama Karmali Jugal Karmali 14. Ashok Sao S/o Late Nageshwar Sao Award no.-35 1 W.P.(C) No.4679 of 2017 15. Dasrath Karmali Award no.-37 S/o Late Chandra Nath Karmali 16. Jagdish Ram S/o Late Sahdeo Ram Award no.-38 17. Dinesh Pratap Singh Award no.-39 S/o Late Fulwanti Devi & Late Ram Barhan Singh 18. Nandu Munda S/o Late Tulshi Munda 19. Mahabir Pd. Agarwal S/o Late Biolal Agarwal 20. Kafil Akhtar S/o Late Md. Islam Award no.-40 Award no.-41 Award no.-42 1 to 20 petitioners are residents of Village- Pochra, P.O.- Barkakana, P.S.- Patratu, Dist.- Hazaribag now Ramgarh. 21. Tetri Devi Award no.-05 W/o Late Rajkumar Munda 22. Raju Lohar @ Raju Karmali Award no.-07 S/o Late Ghunu Lohar 23. Somra Munda S/o Late Foudra Munda Award no.-23 24. Hirday Narayan Tiwari Award no.-28 S/o Late Rajendra Tiwari 25. Rameshwar Sao S/o Late Gansu Teli 26. Deocharan Pandey S/o Late Mathura Pandey 27. Kananbala Das Gupta Award no.-36 Award no.-37 Award no.-38 D/o Late Bipin Bihari Das Gupta 28. Yogendra Munda Award no.-40 S/o Late Ramcharan Munda 2 W.P.(C) No.4679 of 2017 29. Sukan Munda S/o Late Chaman Munda 30. Rajesh Munda S/o Late Ghuja Munda Award no.-42 Award no.-45 … Petitioners Versus 1. State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner Hazaribagh, Hazaribagh District Collectorate, P.O.+P.S.Hazaribagh, Dist.- Hazaibagh, Jharkhand 2. District Land Acquisition Officer Hazaribagh, Hazaribagh, District Collectorate, P.O. + P.S. Hazaribagh, Dist.- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand 3. Deputy Commissioner Ramgarh, District Collectorate, P.O.+P.S. Ramgarh, Dist.- Ramgarh, Jharkhand. 4. District Land Acquisition Officer Ramgarh, Ramgarh District Collectorate, P.O.+P.S.- Ramgarh, Dist.- Ramgarh, Jharkhand For the Petitioner For the Respondents … Respondents ------
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Bhaiya V. Kumar, Advocate Mr. Shyam Kr. Dey, Advocate Mr. Mitul Kumar, Advocate : Mr. J. F. Toppo, GA V Mr. Amrit R. Kisku, AC to GA V ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ, order, direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 23.07.2015 (copy of which has been kept at Annexure-6 of this Writ Petition) and further for issuance of a writ 3 W.P.(C) No.4679 of 2017 in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to prepare the award under Section 28 A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the land of the petitioners were acquired by the State for the Defence of India under Land Acquisition Case No.01/83-84 and 16/87-88 and award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 10.10.1988 was prepared in favour of the writ petitioners and their family members, by the collector and compensation was received by the applicants under protest. Other similar land holders whose lands were acquired by the same notification filed petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the Collector, Hazaribagh for determination of fair market value. The same was referred to the Land Acquisition Judge and Land Reference Case No.21 to 31/90 was registered. The Land Acquisition Judge, Hazaribagh enhanced the compensation and fixed the rate of all the class of land @ Rs.2,500/- per decimal. The applicants on the basis of the award/judgment dated 15.10.2004 passed by the Land Acquisition Judge, Hazaribagh in L.R. Case No.21 to 31/90 filed individual petition under Section 28 A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 11.02.2005 within time for redetermination of the Collector’s award. The applications filed by the writ petitioners were kept on the record and the proceeding was not started because of the reason that the said award of the Land Acquisition Court was challenged before this Court as is evident from the information furnished under Right to Information Act, the copy of which has been kept at Annexure-2 of this writ petition. In this Court, F.A. No.03 to 13 of 2005 was registered on the basis of the appeal filed by the Union of India through defence and ultimately vide judgment dated 4 W.P.(C) No.4679 of 2017 02.01.2014, a Bench of this Court dismissed the said appeals confirming the award of the Land Acquisition Court, Hazaribagh. On 06.10.2015, another memorandum/representation was further filed before the District Land Acquisition Office, Ramgarh by the petitioners but the office of the District Land Acquisition Office, Ramgarh grossly erred in not entertaining/considering the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. The respondent No.4 vide order dated 23.07.2015 considered the fact that the Land Acquisition Judge, Hazaribagh passed the judgment on 15.10.2004. The application submitted by the petitioners bears date 11.02.2005 but there is no seal of the Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribagh on the application submitted by the petitioners and the respondent No.4 further observed that though the district of Ramgarh was created on 12.09.2007 after an unreasonable delay only on 03.01.2014, the application submitted by the writ petitioners dated 11.02.2005 was sent to Ramgarh to the respondent No.2 by its letter dated 21.12.2021. The respondent No.4 also considered that no order-sheet was maintained consequent upon submission of the applications under Section 28A dated 11.02.2005 by the petitioners nor any notice was issued to the parties. As it appeared suspicious to the respondent No.4, hence, he rejected the 31 applications. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the undisputed fact remains that the applications were submitted on 11.02.2005. Therefore, if there was any laches it was on the part of the respondent No.2 and for the laches of the respondent No.2, certainly the petitioners cannot be deprived of their right of redetermination of amount of compensation payable to them on the basis of 5 W.P.(C) No.4679 of 2017 the award of the court, hence, it is submitted that the prayers as prayed for in this writ petition, be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the fact that petitioners claim that they submitted the application form under Section 28 A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 11.02.2005 is a matter of record. Hence, the same do not require any comment but the learned counsel for the respondents fairly admits that the record of Land Reforms Case started in Hazaribagh district relating to matters of land acquisition falling under the jurisdiction of Ramgarh district where transfer to newly formed Ramgarh district are correct. The land in question was acquired for extension of Cantonment Board, Ramgarh in the year 1984. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that though the reference court pronounced the judgment on 15.10.2004 but the petitioners filed the petition under Section 28 A of the Land Acquisition Act on 11.02.2005 which is hopelessly barred by limitation of three months as envisaged in Section 28 A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Hence, it is submitted that there is no illegality in the order passed by the respondent No.4. It is lastly submitted that this writ petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is the admitted case of the respondents that the petitioners filed the petition under Section 28 A of the Land Acquisition Act on 11.02.2005 as mentioned in page-15, paragraph-15 of the counter-affidavit of respondent Nos.3 and 4. It is pertinent to mention here that the proviso to Section 28 A of 6 W.P.(C) No.4679 of 2017 the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 envisages that in computing the period of three months within which an application under Section 28 A of the said act is to be made to the Collector, the time spent for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded. 7. The perusal of the supplementary affidavit, the contents of which remain uncontroverted, shows that the petitioners applied for the certified copy on 18.10.2004 and they were supplied the certified copy on 23.11.2004. So, excluding the 37 days in obtaining the certified copy, the petition under Section 28 A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was filed within 82 days from the date of judgment. So, it is well within the period of three months. So, this Court is of
Decision
the considered view that the filing of the applications by the writ petitioners on 11.02.2005 is well within time. Since, it is the admitted case of the respondents that petitioners filed their applications under Section 28 A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 within time, the delay, if any in transmitting the same, not maintaining any order-sheet, not issuing notices to the parties, the respondent No.2 not making any endorsement or signatures on the applications submitted by the petitioners are all laches on the part of the officers of the respondents for which the petitioners cannot be deprived of their legitimate right of redetermination of the amount of compensation; on the basis of award of the court. 8. Hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the respondent No.4 has committed a gross illegality in rejecting the said applications of the petitioners merely on the ground of suspicion only but without entering into the merit of the case. 7 W.P.(C) No.4679 of 2017 9. Accordingly, the order dated 23.07.2015 passed by the respondent No.4 (copy of which has been kept at Annexure-6 of this Writ Petition) is quashed and set aside. 10. The matter is remanded back to the respondent No.4 to pass a fresh order in accordance with law preferably within three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 11. This Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 25th of April, 2024 AFR/ Animesh-Saroj 8 W.P.(C) No.4679 of 2017