Seraikela Kharswan, PIN 833219. … v. 1
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No.622 of 2022 ----- Kalawati Devi, aged about 87 years, Wife of late Chandi Prasad Choudhary, resident of Seraikela, Ward No.07, P.O. & P.S.:Seraikela, Dist: Seraikela Kharswan, PIN 833219. … … Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Bimla Devi Agarwal 2. Sri Kailash Agarawal 3. Sri Dinbandhu Agarwal 4. Mini Mahatani 5. Mini Mahatani 6. Munu Mahato 7. Sangita Mahato 8. Ahok Kumar Mahato 9. Dilip Kumar Mahato 10. Premshila Devi 11. Suresh Mahato 12. Samresh Mahato 13. Ganesh Parasad Choudhary 14. Raman Kumar Choudhary 15. Binod Choudhary 16. Kiran Choudhary 17. Subham Choudhary 18. Priyanka Agarwal 19. Durga Devi 20. Manju Devi 21. Sarita Devi 22. Bharat Nayak 23. Jeetu Nayak 24. Champa Nayak 25. Nuni Nayak 26. Jhuni Nayak 27. Sukurmani Nayak 28. Sahadeb Nayak 29. Sahachari Nayak 30. Chinto Nayak 31. Durgamani Nayakani 32. Saraswati Nayakani 33. Somani Nayankai 34. Shanti Devi 35. Arjun Nayak 36. Nakul Nayak 37. Gulul Nayak 38. Kaushalya Nayank 39. Kali Nayakani 40. Sukhlal Nayak Page 1 C.M.P. No.622 of 2022 41. Minor Chhotu Nayank 42. Indra Nayaki 43. Duryodhan Nayak 44. Krishnapada Mahato 45. Madan Mahato 46. Adityapur Uddayami Griha Nirman Sahayog Samity Limited 47. State of Jharkhand 48. The Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella Kharswan 49. District Land Acquisition Officer, Seraikella Kharswan 50. The Circle Officer, Gamharia, Seraikella Kharswan. … … Opp. Parties ------- CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD ------- For the Petitioner For the O.P. 4 to 12 For the O.P. No.18 : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate : Mr. Saket Upadhyaya, Advocate : Ms. Sweta Rani, Advocate : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pandey, Advocate Order No. 08/Dated 28th June, 2024 ------ 1. This petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the order dated 11.10.2021 passed in Civil Appeal No.09 of 2021 whereby and whereunder the learned court has stayed the disbursement and payment of compensation amount lying deposited in the account of the present petitioner Kalawati Devi and her legal heirs in Central Bank of India, Sakchi Branch, Jamshedpur till appearance of all the respondents. 2.
Legal Reasoning
The case of the petitioner is that the plaintiff- respondent herein filed a suit being Original Suit No.15 of 1992 for declaration of raiyati right over the landed property detailed in the schedule of the plaint. The said title suit was filed by the Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 impleading the present petitioner as the defendant to the suit. Page 2 C.M.P. No.622 of 2022 3. The said title suit has been dismissed on contest vide judgment dated 05.08.2021. The judgment debtor has preferred appeal being Civil Appeal No.9/2021. The learned appellate court has passed order on 11.10.2021 on the petition dated 07.10.2021 filed under order XLI Rule 5 C.P.C. wherein prayer has been made that during the pendency of the suit, i.e., Original Title Suit No.15/1992 before the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-II, Seraikella, properties were acquired by the Government for construction of Bridge and Award was prepared and compensation money was paid to the Respondent No.9 Kalawati Devi and her legal heirs which is lying deposited in the account in their names in Central Bank of India, Sakchi Branch. 4. The opposite parties-appellants have filed objection before the District Land Acquisition Officer, Seraikella but when the same was not entertained, a writ petition was filed before this Court being W.P.(C) No.1015 of 2007, W.P.(C) No.5741 of 2007 and W.P.(C) No.5749 of 2007. 5. During the pendency of the said suit and the writ petitions, the cheque of compensation amount was issued in the name of the petitioner-Kalawati Devi and same was deposited by her in her account of Central Bank of India but the same has not been allowed to be withdrawn on the Page 3 C.M.P. No.622 of 2022 basis of the direction passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharswan. 6. The said petition filed under Order XLI Rule 5 C.P.C. has been allowed by restraining the bank not to disburse the deposited amount in the name of the account of the petitioner-Kalawati Devi and her legal heirs. 7. Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued by questioning the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella- Kharswan on the ground that once the amount has been received by the awardee and deposited in her account, it was none of the business of the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharswan to restrain the bank from releasing the amount. 9. Further, the appellant court has also passed an improper order in staying the disbursement of the amount once the amount has already been disbursed in favour of the petitioner who is Respondent No.9 to the appeal. 10. Such argument has been advanced on the basis of the fundamental of the Land Acquisition Act and that after preparation of the Award the follow up action is issuance of notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Page 4 C.M.P. No.622 of 2022 11. It has been submitted that notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act had been issued in favour of the title holder, i.e., petitioner who was Respondent No.9 to the appeal namely, Kalawati Devi. 12. Once the amount has been handed over and deposited in the account of the petitioner, then under what jurisdiction the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella- Kharswan has restrained the bank not to disburse the amount. 13. Further, under what authority the bank has followed the direction passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharswan which is contrary to the norms/policy of the Reserve Bank of India, reason being that the moment the amount has been deposited in the account of the party, the right will be said to be accrued for its withdrawal and in that view of the matter, the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharswan has got no jurisdiction to pass any prohibitory order not to withdraw the said money. 14. Further, the appellate court, without appreciating the fact about disbursement, has also passed the same order which was of the like nature of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharswan. 15. It has been contended that while passing the prohibitory order both by the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharswan and the appellate court, have Page 5 C.M.P. No.622 of 2022 exceeded the jurisdiction in not utilizing the amount which has been disbursed in lieu of acquisition of the land. 16. The apprehension has been made that by the time the appeal will be decided after disposal of the present petition, the petitioner who is about 90 years of age, will be no more available for utilizing the said money. 17. The present petition challenging the order dated 11.10.2021 is based upon the aforesaid grounds. 18. The argument has been advanced that the present petition has been filed way back on 15.09.2022 but due to non-service of notice upon some of the opposite parties, the matter is still pending which is causing irreparable loss to the awardee, the petitioner who was Respondent No.9 to the appeal. 19. The argument has also been advanced that some of the respondents are intentionally not appearing which is causing delay in disposal of the present petition. 20. Mr. Tewari, on the aforesaid pretext, has submitted that since some of the respondents are not putting their appearance even though they are appellant to the appeal, hence, the appellate court may be directed to dispose of the appeal within a specific period. 21. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Page 6 C.M.P. No.622 of 2022 22. It is evident from the order-sheet that this Court while hearing the matter, had directed for issuance of notice to the opposite parties. As per office note dated 07.03.2024, the notice was issued to O.P. Nos.2, 3, 18, 24, 25, 29 to 33 and 43 to 45. Out of the above, the notice issued to O.P. No.24, 30, 32 and 43 could not be served and rest have been validly served. 23. Some of the opposite parties, i.e., O.P. No.4 to 12, have put their appearance who are being represented by Mr. Saket Upadhyay, learned counsel. 24. The O.P. No.18 has also put his appearance who is being represented by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel. 25. The O.P. Nos. 1 and 42 have died, therefore, two interlocutory applications have been filed being I.A. No.2494 of 2024 and I.A. No.2495 of 2024 respectively. 26. Mr. Saket Upadhyay and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel, have also submitted that the learned court may be directed to decide the appeal finally. 27. This Court, having heard learned counsel for the parties and based upon the reason that the awardee is having the age of approximately 90 years and some of the appellants to the appeal have not appeared, therefore, in order to have expeditious remedy to the petitioner, is of the Page 7 C.M.P. No.622 of 2022 view that the appeal itself is directed to be decided within specific period. 28. The appellate court is, therefore, directed to decide the appeal within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 29. So far as the issue of substitution of O.P. Nos. 1 and 42 are concerned for which two interlocutory applications have been filed, the appropriate recourse will be taken by the appellate court for addition of the parties. 30. Accordingly, the instant Civil Miscellaneous Petition
Decision
stands disposed of. 31. Consequently, the interlocutory applications also stand disposed of. Birendra/A.F.R. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Page 8 C.M.P. No.622 of 2022