Back
2019 Supreme(Jhk) 394
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
Debashish Chakrobarty, Son of Nirmal Kumar Chakrobarty - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No.5790 of 2018
Decided On : 08-02-2019
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sunil Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Suman Kumar Ghosh Adv, Mr. Anjani Nandan.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 – Claim of compensation - Acquisition of land - Extraordinary jurisdiction - Brief facts of case of petitioner is that land in which he is also one of title-holder by virtue of order passed in Land Acquisition Case in pursuance thereto compensation has been paid in favor of displaced person but his claim has not been considered hence he has approached this Court by filing writ petition being which was disposed of vide order wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court has passed an order giving liberty to petitioner to approach before authority and authority concerned has directed to take decision on representation of petitioner in accordance with law - In terms thereof aforesaid reasoned order has been passed by Deputy Commissioner by which claim of petitioner is rejected on ground that compensation has already been paid in favor of awardees and as such petitioner being legal heirs of said awardees cannot be given claim independently and further on ground that said claim is being raised after lapse of year – Petitioner after lapse of years has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by filing writ petition being this Court while disposing of aforesaid writ petition vide order has given liberty to petitioner to approach before competent authority and in turn thereof competent authority had been directed to take decision in accordance with law - In pursuance thereto decision has been taken rejecting claim of petitioner which is under challenge - It is evident that petitioner is claiming amount of compensation by claiming himself to be one of title holders of land in question - Petitioner has questioned impugned decision on account of fact that some of record is not legible and details of payment made in favor of awardees in lieu of acquisition of land is not clear - It is ground of petitioner that when the authorities have not gone into relevant documents rejection of claim is not proper - Reasoned order has been passed on ground that legible copy is not available and also on ground of delay of years in making claim of compensation - It is settled position of law that money claim is not to be entertained after lapse of three years and when same cannot be entertained by competent court adjudicating claim by High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India would not be proper on account of principle of delay and latches and it is settled that writ court is not meant for loath litigants - So far as reason related to legible copy of documents it is in considered view of this Court that said reason is valid one since same also pertains to delay and after lapse of more than years if document is not legible for which also petitioner is liable by not approaching before competent authority well within reasonable time it would have approached well within reasonable time matter could have been different - It is further evident from impugned order that from Award that over said plot money has been paid in favor of awardees petitioner being legal heirs of said awardees now cannot claim over said land - Writ petition stands dismissed
ORDER :
1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the order dated 01.05.2018, as contained under Memo No. 728 dated 01.05.2018 (Annexure-5) is under challenge, whereby and where under, the claim of the petitioner is for compensation, in lieu of acquisition of land, has been rejected, is under challenge.
2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that the land, in which, he is also one of the title-holder, by virtue of order passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 18/62-63 in pursuance thereto, the compensation has been paid in favour of the displaced person in the year 1964, but his claim has not been considered, hence he has approached this Court by filing writ petition, being W.P.(C) No. 2609 of 2016, which was disposed of vide order dated 22.08.2017, wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court has passed an order, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach before the authority and the authority concerned has directed to take decision on the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law.
In terms thereof, the aforesaid reasoned order has been passed on 01.05.2018 by the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, by which, the claim of petitioner is rejected on the ground that the compensation has already been paid in favour of the awardees and as such, the petitioner, being the legal heirs of the said awardees cannot be given the claim independently and further on the ground that the said claim is being raised after lapse of 54 years.
3. The petitioner, being aggrieved with the said order, approached before this Court for the reason that before coming to the conclusive finding, the authority ought to have gone across the documents, since it was not available as such claim has been rejected, therefore, the aforesaid order cannot be said to be justified.
4. The State has been represented by learned A.C. to G.A., who has submitted that there is no infirmity for the reason that compensation has been paid in the year 1964, in terms of an adjudication made in the Land Acquisition Case No. 82/62-16 and the amount has been disbursed in favour of the displaced persons, whose names were in the awards, the petitioner has not raised any objection during the relevant time and it is after lapse of about 50 years, the dispute is being raised. Hence the said demand is not tenable in view of the fact that the said claim is barred by the period of limitation and delay and latches.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions, it is evident from the material available on record that the petitioner is claiming the compensation on account of acquisition of land.
It is evident from the material available and more particularly the impugned order that a proceeding was initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, being Land Acquisition Case No. 18/62-63, on the basis of which, the compensation amount had been paid to the awardees in the year 1964.
6. The petitioner, after lapse of 50 years, has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court in the year 2016 by filing writ petition, being W.P.(S). No. 2609 of 2016, this Court while disposing of the aforesaid writ petition, vide order dated 22.08.2017 has given the liberty to the petitioner to approach before the competent authority and in turn thereof, the competent authority had been directed to take decision in accordance with law. In pursuance thereto, the decision has been taken on 01.05.2018 rejecting the claim of the petitioner, which is under challenge.
7. It is evident that the petitioner is claiming the amount of compensation by claiming himself to be one of the title holders of the land in question. The petitioner has questioned the impugned decision on account of the fact that some of the record is not legible and the details of the payment, made in favour of the awardees, in lieu of the acquisition of land is not clear.
It is the ground of the petitioner that when the authorities have not gone into
