Shankar Mahato S/o Late Sitaram Mahato vs State of Jharkhand

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Jhk) 164

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, SUBHASH CHAND, JJ.
Shankar Mahato S/o Late Sitaram Mahato – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
L.P.A. No. 210 of 2018
Decided On : 11-04-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Manoj Tandon, Rishi Bharti.
For the Respondent: Ratnesh Kumar.

Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 17 - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24(2) – Land acquisition – Compensation – Interlocutory Application – Condonation of delay – Held, Court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction – As a constitutional Court it has a duty to protect rights of citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches Court at his own leisure or pleasure – Be it noted, delay comes in way of equity – Court, after having discussed facts in entirety as also legal position and going through order passed by learned Single Judge, is of considered view that that learned Single Judge has considered all these aspects of matter,same requires no interference – Appeal dismissed

ORDER :

I.A. No. 1844 of 2022

1. The present Interlocutory Application has been filed for condonation of delay of 64 days in filing the instant appeal.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. No counter affidavit has been filed opposing the prayer for condoning the delay.

4. Having regard to the averments made in this application, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation.

5. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1844 of 2022 is allowed and delay of 64 days in preferring the appeal is condoned.

L.P.A. No. 210 of 2018

6. The instant intra-court appeal, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against order dated 11.12.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 4109 of 2014, wherein prayer has been made for setting aside the land acquisition proceeding being L.A. Case No. 11 of 1958-59 which was initiated by issuance of a notification under section 4(1) read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1894”) for acquisition of 24.78 acres land situated in Mauza-Saraidhela, P.S. Saraidhela, District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand (hereinafter called the said land) on two ground i.e. that the land has not been used for the public purpose for which it was acquired and secondly prayer has been made to restore the land on the basis of the new Act i.e. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 2013”), which contains a provision as under 24(2), has been dismissed.

7. The briefs facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, read as under:

A land acquisition proceeding, being L.A. Case No. 11 of 1958-59, was initiated by issuance of a notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17 of the Act, 1894 for acquisition of 24.78 acres of land situated in Mouza-Saraidhela within the District of Dhanbad and subsequently, an area of 24.75 acres of land was declared to be acquired under Section 6 of the Act, 1894. The land of the petitioners was also acquired under the said acquisition proceeding and now they are claiming for restoration of their land.

8. It is evident from the materials available on record, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition that the land in question has been decided to be acquired by issuance of notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17 of the Act, 1894. The State Government initiated a proceeding for acquisition of land being L.A. Case No. 11 of 1958-59. The proceeding of the aforesaid acquisition case was concluded and thereafter compensation has also been paid as per Award prepared in Land Acquisition Case No. 11 of 1958-59.

The petitioner has raised the grievance that the land has not been taken by the State and as such in view of saving clause of the Act, 2013 i.e. 24(2) of the Act, 2013, the proceeding which was initiated under the old Act i.e. the Act, 1984 will be set at knot and a fresh land acquisition proceeding is required to be initiated under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. Second ground has been raised that the land which was acquired for a particular purpose but the same was not utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired and hence the land be restored in favour of raiyats.

The grievance of the writ petitioner having been not redressed at the end of the State Government, therefore, the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 4109 of 2014 has been filed. The learned Single Judge, after calling upon the State and taking into consideration the fact that the acquisition proceeding was initiated way back in the year 1958 basis upon which the amount of compensation, as determined in the acquisition proceeding, has been paid, hold that there is no question of applicability of the Act, 2013 by taking aid of Section 24(2) thereof and refused to entertain the grounds for restoration of land on the ground that once the land has been acquired by the State and