Saruf Lal Singh, son of Chamru Singh @ Chamak Lal Singh (Deleted vide order v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy Commissioner, Godda, P.O. and P.S. Godda, District
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 1608 of 2017 Saruf Lal Singh, son of Chamru Singh @ Chamak Lal Singh (Deleted vide order dated 05.03.2024) 1. Naresh Singh, S/o late Saruf Lal Singh 2. Bambam Kumar Singh, S/o Late Saruf Lal Singh Both R/o of Bhelai, P.O. Sondiha, Bamangama, P.S. Dhoriya, District Banka (Bihar) Petitioners … … Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy Commissioner, Godda, P.O. and P.S. Godda, District Ranchi 3. District Land Acquisition Officer, Godda, P.O. & P.S. Godda, District Ranchi 4. Circle Officer, Godda, P.O. & P.S. Godda, District Ranchi 5. Triloki Prasad Singh, son of Late Fatu Singh, resident of Kurman Ghat, P.O. Deobandha, P.S. Godda, District Godda
Legal Reasoning
6. Sri Shashi Kant Sirkar, son of not known to petitioner, at present posted as Circle Officer, Godda, P.O. & P.S. Godda, District Ranchi 7. Sri Pawan Kumar, son of not known to petitioner, at present posted as District Land Acquisition Officer, Godda, P.O. & P.S. Godda, Ranchi … … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioners For the Respondents 10/14th October 2024 --- --- : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate : Mr. Ashish Kr. Thakur, Advocate Mr. Praveen Akhauri, Advocate 1. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: - “for issuance of appropriate Writ or Writs, direction or directions, order or orders to set aside the order dated 28-01-2017 passed by the Circle Officer, Godda by which Circle Officer, Godda without considering the Genealogical Table produced on behalf of petitioner and others have rejected the Claim of petitioner and has illegally accepted the Claim of Triloki Prasad Singh and thereafter direction may be given to Respondents to send the matter to Learned Civil Court for decision because Circle Officer, Godda has no Jurisdiction to decide this matter and only Competent Court of Civil Court has power to decide this matter 1 and Concern Respondents instead of sending the matter to Learned Civil Court has sent it to Circle Officer to decide the matter: AND Petitioner further prays for issuance of appropriate Writ or Writs, direction or directions, order or orders commanding the Concern Respondents to pay Compensation for the land situated at Mouza- Kuraman, Thana No. 517, Khata No. 52, Plot No. 46 area 0.242 acre, Khata No. 53, Plot No. 160, Area 0.326 acre, Plot No. 145 area 0.076 acre, Plot No. 146, area 0.058, Khata No. 54, Plot No. 79, area 0.012 acre, to petitioner also because petitioner is also a legal heirs of Late Raman Mahara. Petitioner further prays during pendency of this writ petition direction may be given to concern respondents not to pay any compensation in respect to the land of Khata No. 52, 53, 54 which is subject matter of this writ petition to any other person.” 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the final award in the present case was prepared on 10.09.2016 and objection to the award was raised on 17.01.2017 by referring to genealogy. He submits that the respondent No. 3 instead of making a reference to the court in terms of Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has got an enquiry conducted through the Circle Officer who has practically decided the title between the parties. The learned counsel submits that such action on the part of the respondent No. 3 is not in accordance with law. He submits that the respondent No. 3 should have referred the matter for adjudication through competent court of civil jurisdiction and accordingly appropriate order be passed. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents has submitted that the enquiry was conducted upon an application filed by the deceased petitioner on 17.01.2017. The enquiry was conducted in terms of Section 11 of the Act of 1894 and the objection of the deceased petitioner was rejected. There is no challenge to such rejection of objection. He submits that those orders have been brought on record by filing a counter-affidavit by the respondent No. 5. He submits that under such circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that the award is finally prepared after required enquiry in terms of Section 11 of the Act of 1894 and as per provisions of Section 30 of the Act of 1894, if any objection is filed the matter is to be referred to the court in terms of Section 30. 2 He submits that the enquiry under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 is a stage prior to preparation of final award. He submits that the final award has been prepared on 10.09.2016. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not in dispute that the final award in the present case was prepared on 10.09.2016 and the objection to the final award was raised on 17.01.2017 by the deceased petitioner by referring to certain genealogy and a prayer was made before the respondent No. 3 that the person in whose favour the award was prepared his name should be deleted and appropriate amendments be made in the final award. The respondent No. 3 instead of referring the matter for adjudication in terms of Section 30 of the Act of 1894 has directed for further enquiry by the Circle Officer who vide enquiry report dated 28.01.2017 has opined that the award was rightly prepared. It appears from the record, particularly the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No. 5, that the District Land Acquisition Officer (respondent No. 3) rejected the objection filed by the deceased petitioner by accepting the report of the enquiry officer. 7. This Court is of the considered view that once the final award is prepared after conducting all the required enquiries in terms of Section 11 of the Act of 1894 and the award is prepared finally in terms of Section 12 of the Act of 1894, as per provision of Section 30 of the Act of 1894, if any dispute with regard to apportionment of any amount or entitlement of any person is raised, it is for the Collector to refer the dispute to the decision of the court. In a case where the entitlement is disputed by referring to genealogy such dispute could not have been decided through an enquiry by the Circle Officer and consequently the authority should have referred the dispute for adjudication in terms of Section 30 of the Act of 1894. 8. Accordingly, the respondent No. 3 is directed to refer the dispute for adjudication by the competent authority in terms of Section 30 of the Act of 1894. 3 9. The needful be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. 11. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. Mukul (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 4