The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Suresh Kishoria W.P.(C) No. 6104 of 2023 ----- … Petitioner(s). Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The Secretary, Water Resource Department, Government of Jharkhand 3.The Chief Engineer, Water Resource Department, Government of Jharkhand 4.The Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh 5.The Circle Officer, Chitarpur, Ramgarh 6.Executive Engineer-cum-rehabilitation Officer (Bhairwa Reservoir Scheme), Hazaribagh 7.Special Land Acquisition Officer, Tenu Ghat Project, Hazaribagh … Respondent(s). WITH W.P.(C) No. 6108 of 2023 ----- Kalim Ullah Versus … Petitioner(s). 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The Secretary, Water Resource Department, Government of Jharkhand 3.The Chief Engineer, Water Resource Department, Government of Jharkhand 4.The Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh 5.The Circle Officer, Chitarpur, Ramgarh 6.Executive Engineer-cum-rehabilitation Officer (Bhairwa Reservoir Scheme), Hazaribagh 7.Special Land Acquisition Officer, Tenu Ghat Project, Hazaribagh … Respondent(s). ------ CORAM :
Legal Reasoning
The issue herein has already been decided by this Court in the case of Gopal Patar @ Gopal Chandra Patar and Others vs. State of -4- Jharkhand and Others passed in W.P.(C) No.758 of 2019, wherein it has been held that even if the land has not been submerged, then also the petitioners are entitled to get the benefit as their entire land and house have been acquired. Once the land and house of the petitioners are acquired and the petitioners are displaced, they are entitled for the benefit of rehabilitation, issuance of ’Vikash Pustika’ and other reliefs. 10. I find that these cases of the petitioners are squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Gopal Patar @ Gopal Chandra Patar and Others vs. State of Jharkhand and Others passed in W.P.(C) No.758 of 2019. 11. Accordingly, the instant writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to file a fresh representation before respondent No.6, who will pass appropriate order in respect of issuance of ’Vikash Pustika’ and the benefit under the policy in favour of the petitioners. R.S. (ANANDA SEN, J.)
Arguments
SRI ANANDA SEN, J. For the Petitioner(s) For the State ------ : Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rajiv Kr. Pandey, Advocate Mr. Bhawesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ashutosh Anand-2, Advocate : Mr. Shivam Singh, AC to S.C.-II Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II 05 /29.02.2024: …...... Heard, learned counsel for the parties 2. Petitioners in these writ petitions have prayed for declaring the petitioners as displaced and issuing Displaced Family Development Booklet (Vikash Pustika) and to extend benefits under the for policy formulated by Water Recourses Department as the land of the petitioners have been acquired and further prayer to provide employment to one of the family members of these petitioners under the Rehabilitation Policy. 3. From pleadings and arguments of the parties, I find that admittedly the land of the petitioners were acquired, thus, they must be compensated. -2- 4. The only objection the State has taken that there is no evidence to suggest that the land which was acquired, has been submerged or not. Until and unless the land is submerged, the petitioners are not entitled to get the benefit and no ’Vikash Pustika’ can be issued in their favour. 5. The word ’displaced person’ has been defined in Clause 3.1 of the aforesaid policy. It is necessary to quote Clause 3.1 of the Revised Rehabilitation Policy of the State, which reads in Hindi as under:- “3.1: 'foLFkkfir' mUgsa ekuk tk;sxk tks fd Hkw&vtZu vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&4 ds v/khu vf/klwpuk ds izdk’ku dh rkjh[k ls de&ls&de ,d o"kZ iwoZ ls ml {ks= esa ftldk fd Hkw&vtZu fd;k tk jgk gS] esa lk/kj.kr;k jgrs jgs gks] ,oa (d) ftudk vkokl ty Iykfor Mwc {ks= esa vFkok Mwc {ks= ds ckgj vftZr dh x;h Hkwfe esa iM+rk gks] vFkok ([k) ftuds ikl dh vk/kk ;k vf/kd Hkwfe] vtZu ds QyLo:i <kbZ ,dM ;k mlls de flafpr Hkwfe ;k lk<s rhu ,dM ;k mlls de vflafpr Hkwfe ’ks"k jg tkrh gks] vFkok (x) Hkwfeghu tks viuh vkthfodk vf/kxzfgr dh tk jgh Hkwfe ij etnwjh / Lofu;kstu / f’kYidkjh vkfn ij fuokZg dj jgs gks ,oa Hkw&vtZu ds i’pkr x‘g foghu ,oa vkthofodk foghu gks tk,sxsA mDr izko/kku ls Li"V gS fd tyk’k; ds Mwc {ks= ls izHkkfor tks mDr ’krkZsa dks iwjk djrs gS dks gh foLFkkfir ekuk x;k gSA ;kstuk ds ugjks ds fy, vftZr Hkwfe ds vk/kkj ij izHkkfor O;fDr;ksa dks foLFkkfir ugha ekuk tk ldrk gS D;ksafd& (i) iqujhf{kr iquokZl uhfr& 2012 dh dafMdk 3.1 dh ewy Hkkouk esa tkyk’kk; dk Mwc {ks= ds foLFkkfir gS u fd ugjksa ds fy, Hkw&vtZu ls izHkkforA (ii) Mwc {ks= ls izHkkfor gksus okys dh jksth&jkVh ,oa thfodk fNu tkrh gS ,oa mUgsa fcYdqy u;s {ks= esa tkuk iM+rk gSA blfy, bUgsa foLFkkfir dk ntkZ izkIr gSA ugjksa ds lkFk ,slh fLFkfr ugha gSA ugjksa ls izHkkfor O;fDr mlh {ks= esa jgrs gS ,oa vftZr Hkwfe dk eqvkotk mUgsa fn;k tkrk gSA mudh thfodk ij dksbZ izHkko ugha iM+rk gS] cfYd ugjksa ds dkj.k muds thou Lrj esa lq/kkj gh gksrk gSA (iii) ugjksa ds fy, vftZr Hkwfe ds vk/kkj ij ;fn bUgsa foLFkkfir ekuk tk; rks lkjs jkT; esa ,sls ekeyksa dh ck<+ vk ldrh gS] tks okafNr ,oa U;k;ksfpr ugha gSA vr,oa mDr ds vkyksd esa ugjksa ds fy, vftZr Hkwfe ds vk/kkj ij izHkkfor O;fDr;ksa dks foLFkkfir ekuk tkuk mfpr ugha gksxkA The English translation of the aforesaid policy reads as under:- “3.1 Those shall be considered as 'displaced' who are ordinarily residing for a period of not less than one year preceding the date of publication of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in the area under which land is being acquired, and (a) Whose residence falls under the submerged area or the land acquired outside the submerged area, or (b) Whose half or more than half of land, as a result of acquisition, is two and half acres irrigated land or less than it or three and half acres of unirrigated land or less than it, or -3- (c) Landless persons who are earning their livelihood by means of wages/self-employment/artisan etc. on the land to be acquired and shall be deprived of their home and livelihood. It is clear from the above provisions that only those persons shall be considered as displaced who are affected with submerged area of reservoir and fulfill the above conditions. The persons affected on the basis of land acquired for the canals under the scheme shall not be considered as displaced, since- (i) Under the basic spirit of para 3.1 of the Revised Rehabilitation Policy-2012, it is displaced of the submerged area of the reservoir and not affected with land acquisition for canals. (ii) The persons affected by submergence who deprived of their livelihood and have to move in a completely new area. Therefore, they are considered as displaced. There is no such situation with canals. The people affected by canals live in the same area and they are provided compensation for the acquired land. There is no impact on their livelihood rather their standard of living improves due to the canals. (iii) If they are considered displaced on the basis of their land acquired for canals then the entire state may be flooded with such type of cases which is not required and justified. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, it shall not be appropriate to consider the affected persons as displaced on the basis of their land acquired for the canal.” 6. Thus, from the aforesaid definition, it is clear that if a person whose land and house acquired even if those have not been submerged and if those persons were residing there since more than a year from the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, will be treated to be a displaced person. 7. The interpretation given by the State that only a person who is resided over the land, which after acquisition has submerged, will only be treated as displaced person, is not the correct interpretation. 8. In this case, admittedly, the land and houses of the petitioners were acquired and the petitioners were residing there since prior to a year from the date of issuance of notification, thus they are covered under the definition of “land losers” in terms of Clause 3.1 read with (d) of the Rehabilitation Policy of the State. 9.