The petitioner should pursue alternative recourse under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 instead of directly approaching the Court.

ORDER :

1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the Deputy Commissioner, Saraikela- respondent no.2 to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 11th June, 2019 and to immediately and forthwith disburse the amount of compensation in terms with Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter to be referred as the “Act, 2013”) with respect to the land, appertaining to Khata no.182, plot no.894, Thana no.331, measuring an area of 66.5 decimals, Mouja Dobo, which was acquired for construction of Kanderbera to Domuhani Road.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had purchased the land appertaining to Khata no.182, plot nos.844, 846 & 894, Thana no.331, measuring total area 238.50 decimals, situated at village Dodo, P.S. Chandil, District Saraikela by virtue of deed of conveyance dated 25th November, 2011. Subsequently, the name of the petitioner was also entered in the revenue records vide Mutation Case no.2404 of 2011-12 and since then it has regularly been paying rent to the State Government. The land appertaining to plot no.846, measuring an area of 6.00 decimals and plot no.894, measuring an area of 66.5 decimals was acquired by the Government vide D.L.A. Case no.06/2028-19 for construction of Kanderbera to Domuhani Road in the district of Saraikela. So far as the land appertaining to plot no.846, measuring an area of 6 decimals is concerned, the petitioner has already received compensation of Rs.23,23,846/-. However, despite issuance of notice to the petitioner under Section 21(1) of the Act, 2013 with respect to the land appertaining to plot no.894, no compensation has been paid to it. Aggrieved by the said inaction of the respondent authorities, the petitioner represented the respondent no.2 on 11th June, 2019, but no action has been taken, which has compelled it to file the present writ petition.

3. Mr. Anish Kumar Mishra, learned A.C. to G.A.I, appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that if the petitioner is aggrieved with non-payment of the compensation in lieu of acquisition of the aforesaid land, he should have taken the recourse under the provisions of the Act, 2013 instead of directly approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the petitioner’s grievance that it has not been paid compensation with respect to 66.5 decimals of land of plot no.894 despite issuance of notice under Section 21(1) of the Act, 2013, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should have taken appropriate alternative recourse under the provisions of the Act, 2013 instead of directly preferring the present writ petition.

5. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable.

6. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to take alternative/ statutory recourse as provided under law for redressal of its grievance.