The Additional Collector (Land & Revenue) Dhanbad, P.O. & v. P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No. 4798 of 2021 Shiv Kumar Sharma, aged about 54 years, S/o Late Gokul Chandra Sharma, R/o Bhamal, P.O. & P.S. Nirsa, District Dhanbad, Petitioner Jharkhand … … 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Additional Collector (Land & Revenue) Dhanbad, P.O. & Versus P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand 3. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand 4. Damodar Valley Corporation, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, Jharkhand 5. Maithon Power Limited through the Chief Executive Officer, Dombhui, P.O. & P.S. Nirsa, District Dhanabd, Jharkhand and Having its Plaint Site Officer At MA-5 Gogna Colony Maithon, P.O. Maithon Dam, P.S. Maithon, District Dhanbad … … Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner For the Resp. No. 5 For the Resp.-State For the Resp.-DVC
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, Adv. : Ms. Shilpi Sandil Gagodia, Adv. : Mr. Varun Prabhakar, Advocate : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate --- 07/11.05.2023 1. 2. Learned counsel for the parties are present. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: - “A. For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to provide all such benefits which are lying dues in the account of the Petitioner who are being affected/Land looser by the acquisition of their land for establishment of the Project Maithon Right Bank, Thermal Power Station, to the extend on the tune of agreement dated 07.02.2008 specifically made and entered by and between the Committee of Project affected persons and Maithon Power Limited (MPL). B. For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to resolve the dispute by making payment of Rehabilitation and Resettlement Package/benefits towards the Land Acquisition Proceeding to the Land Looser/Affected Land owners whose names have been registered/enrolled in the khatian valuation statements in L.A. Case No. 23/1995-96 based on the verdict of the Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad in L.A. Reference Case No. 15/2004 under Section 30 of L.A. Act. 2 C. For issuance of any other appropriate writ(s) be issued, order(s) be passed, direction(s) be made as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that primarily the petitioner is claiming benefits under rehabilitation and resettlement policy of the respondents pursuant to some agreement dated 07.02.2008 entered into between the Committee of Project Affected Persons and Maithon Power Limited (MPL). 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 5 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submitted that the respondent No. 5 is not State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and has further referred to the counter-affidavit to submit that the entire benefits under rehabilitation and resettlement benefit has already been given to the land loosers, namely, Monmod Mandal and Ramani Ranjan Mandal, both sons of Late Shahdeb Mandal arising out of L.A. Case No. 23/1995-96. She has also submitted that certain monetary compensation was also paid. She further submits that the respondent No. 5 is not under any obligation to extend any kind of benefit arising out of any of the settlement entered into between the private parties. The learned counsel has also submitted that considering the nature of dispute involved in the present case, the petitioner is primarily trying to enforce the so-called agreement and therefore, no relief be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition and the petitioner has a remedy through the process of court and there are serious disputed questions of facts involved in the present case. The learned counsel has also submitted that the respondent No. 5 was never a party to the compromise. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not in dispute that in L.A. Case No. 23/1995-96, award No. 26 was finally prepared in the name Monmod Mandal and Ramani Ranjan Mandal, both sons of Late Shahdeb Mandal along with their other land so acquired. This statement has been made in
Decision
paragraph 6 of the writ petition. It further appears from paragraph 8 of the writ petition that a proceeding under Section 30 of Land Acquisition Act was started before the land acquisition judge which was numbered as L.A. Reference Case No. 15/2004 and as per paragraph 9 of the writ petition, a 3 compromise decree was drawn on 25.06.2010 and now the petitioners are seeking certain benefits arising out of rehabilitation and resettlement scheme and seeking enforcement of agreement dated 07.02.2008 entered into between the Committee of Project Affected Persons and Maithon Power Limited. 6. As per the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 5, the details regarding payment of rehabilitation and resettlement to Monmod Mandal and Ramani Ranjan Mandal, both sons of Late Shahdeb Mandal has been narrated right from paragraph 14 onward and it appears that the respondent is resisting the claim of the petitioner by clearly stating that they are not entitled to the benefit and the benefit of rehabilitation and resettlement has already been given and for the same property, double benefit cannot be extended. 7. Considering the nature of dispute involved in the present case, this Court is of the considered view that no mandamus as prayed for by the petitioner can be issued by this Court. It is further not clear from the record as to whether respondent No. 5 was the party to the compromise, which has been referred to in the writ petition. This court is of the considered view that if the benefit of rehabilitation and resettlement has already been given (as stated in the counter affidavit) , double benefit for the same property cannot be extended. Moreover the persons who have been already extended the benefits of rehabilitation and resettlement are not even party in the present proceedings. There are disputed questions of facts involved in the present case, which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. 8. However, the petitioner may seek his alternative remedy as may be available under law. 9. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. Mukul (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)