The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 3485 of 2017 1. Ashok Dubey, son of Basudeo Dubey, 2. Lal Mohan Dubey, son of Late Balbhadra Dubey Both resident of Village –Kanchanpur, P.O.+P.S. –Ranka, District – Garhwa. .... Petitioners Versus 1. State of Jharkhand. 2. Secretary Rural Work Department, Project Bhawan, Jharkhand, P.O.+P.S. –Jagarnathpur, District -Ranchi. 3. Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa, P.O.+P.S. and District –Garhwa. 4. Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranka, P.O.+P.S. –Ranka, District –Garhwa. 5. Director JMG/Civil, Ircon International Limited, Awantika between Road 1 and 2, Main Road Ashok Nagar, P.O.+P.S. –Argora, District – Ranchi. 6. Suresh Pandey, son of Late Umadutt Pandey, resident of Ranka, P.O.+P.S. –Ranka, District –Ranchi. …. Respondents P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner For the Resp-State For the Respondent No.5 For the Respondent No.6 : Mr. Santosh Kr. Tiwari, Advocate : Mr. Amitesh Kr. Geasen, AC to AAG -IA : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate : Ms. Saman Ahmad, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. 2. Heard the parties. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue appropriate writ/order/direction calling upon the respondent for acquiring the land of the petitioners as per the provisions of the Land W.P. (C) No.3485 of 2017 1 Acquisition Act and for making payment of the compensation after acquisition and for stopping the construction of the road over the land of the petitioners bearing Khata No. 2, Plot Nos. 748/776/804/807 and Khata No. 78, Plot No. 744/745 in village – Kanchanpur, P.O. –Ranka, Circle+District –Garhwa. 3. The case of the petitioners is that the land in question is running in the name of the ancestors in the revenue records but the respondents are bent upon forcibly constructing a road thereon under the scheme ‘Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojna’ without giving any notice to the petitioners or taking the consent of the petitioners. The petitioners submitted a letter to the Land Acquisition Officer for acquisition of the said land and made several representations to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranka for stopping the work, mentioning therein that the petitioners have no source of income except the land upon which construction of the road is going on. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this writ petition be allowed. 4. The learned counsel for the Respondent-State submits that when the road construction work was going on, the petitioners raised objection claiming ownership of the land over which Grade-I Road was already existing in the year 2004-2005 and prior to that a soil-morum road was constructed in the year 1992-93 which was upgraded as Grade-I Metal Road in the year 2004-2005 and upon raising such objection, the up gradation work in relevant portion of land was stopped to avoid any dispute, complication or W.P. (C) No.3485 of 2017 2 litigation. In the meanwhile, the villagers along with the father of the petitioner no.1 approached the Circle Officer and filed No Objection vide letter dated 14.06.2017 with request to resume the work over the same track. Pursuant to the No Objection submitted by the father of the petitioner no.1, the Circle Officer wrote a letter dated 16.06.2017 to the Land Acquisition Officer, Garhwa to do the needful, hence the matter is pending before the Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, this writ application has become infructuous in view of Section 35 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 5. The learned counsel for the Respondent-State relies upon the Judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Akhileshwar Prasad Vs. The State of Jharkhand in W.P.(C) No. 1902 of 2021 dated 07.12.2021 wherein the Coordinate Bench relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Syed Maqbool Ali v. State of U.P. & Another, reported in (2011) 15 SCC 383, para -12 of which reads as under:- filed decades after “12. The High Courts should also be cautious in entertaining writ petitions the dispossession, seeking directions for acquisition and payment of compensation. It is not uncommon for villagers to offer/donate some part of their lands voluntarily for a public purpose which would benefit them or the community as for example, construction of an access road to the village or their property, or construction of a village tank or a bund to prevent flooding/erosion. When they offer their land for such public purpose, the land would be of little or negligible value. But decades later, when the value increases, either on account of passage of time or on account of developments or improvements carried out by the State, the landholders come up with belated claims alleging that their lands were taken without acquisition and without their consent. When such claims are made after several decades, the State would be at a W.P. (C) No.3485 of 2017 3 disadvantage to contest the claim, as it may not have the records to show in what circumstances the lands were given/donated and whether the land was given voluntarily. Therefore, belated writ petitions, without proper explanation for the delay, are liable to be dismissed. Be that as it may.” (Emphasis supplied) And submits that undisputedly the road was existing since 1992- 93 and the petitioners or their ancestors were not in possession at least since 1992-93 for the land, hence having no right to obstruct construction of the road which is for the public purpose. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent no.5 submits that the construction is in fact up-gradation work of Rural Roads and by a tripartite agreement and memorandum of understanding, the work of execution was entrusted to the respondent-company. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranka has referred the matter to the Circle Officer, Ranka who hurriedly wrote to the Land Acquisition Officer for onward inquiry and process in accordance with law. Hence, the grievance of the petitioners is pending for consideration before the Land Acquisition Officer. 7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, the undisputed fact remains that the road which is to be upgraded under the ‘Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojna’ was in existence since 1992-93 and the petitioners were not in possession thereof. They have never raised any objection when the road was upgraded as Grade-I Road in the year 2004-05. Under such circumstances, this Court is not inclined W.P. (C) No.3485 of 2017 4 to accept the prayer of the petitioner to stop construction of the road. 8. 9. The petitioners, if so advised, are at liberty to seek appropriate legal remedy in appropriate forum for redressal of their grievance of compensation for which, if at all, they are entitled to.
Decision
This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 25th April, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) W.P. (C) No.3485 of 2017 5