IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
Shahnawaz Sheikh - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 1469 of 2022
Decided On : 18-09-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claims for compensation due to dispossession are made. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. respondents contest the claim based on legal title. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court reviews the legitimacy of property claims based on records. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. long delays can preclude relief due to legal principles. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 14) |
| 5. court ultimately dismisses the petition. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
ORDER :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner with respect to the land appertaining to Khata No. 1, Plot No. 1, measuring an area of 2.50 acres of Mouza-Naisarai, P.S Ramgarh Cantt. (Old P.S Mandu), District-Hazaribagh (now Ramgarh) or for issuance of direction upon the respondent-CCL to hand over the vacant possession of the said land to the petitioner as according to him, the respondent-CCL has forcibly taken possession of the said land.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s father namely, Haider Sheikh @ Sheikh Mohammad Haider Ali and his brother namely, Sheikh Ahmad Raja had purchased the said land by virtue of sale deed dated 30.11.1972 from the erstwhile owner namely, Shri Mahesh Tiwari and thereafter they got their name mutated vide order dated 21/29.04.1975 passed in Mutation Case No. 383 of 1974-75. The rent of the said land was also paid from the year 1975 to 1979. However, the respondent-CCL illegally took possession of the said land and constructed houses thereupon. As soon as the petitioners’ father came to know about the said fact, he wrote several letters to the respondent-company, however, all went in vain.
3. It is further submitted that a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C was initiated vide Case No. M-146/1975 on the application of the petitioner’s father and uncle, wherein Director of Mines, Rescue Station, Ramgarh, Karanpura Coal Field was made second party. The said proceeding was subsequently converted into a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C upon application filed by the petitioner’s father and uncle.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner’s father wrote letter to the respondent no. 5 – the General Manager (Land and Revenue), Central Coalfields Ltd., Ranchi on 07.07.2003 seeking compensation for the said land, however, the said respondent vide letter dated 30.08.2003, rejected the claim of compensation made by him. Thereafter, the petitioner raised online grievance in the portal of Ministry of Coal, Government of India, New Delhi through Centralised Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS) on 22.10.2014, however, till date neither any compensation for the said land has been paid to the petitioner nor possession of the same has been restored in his favour.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the said land is recorded in the khatian as Gair Majarua Khas land and the rent receipt of the said land has not been issued since 1979. On inspection of revenue records, jamabandi of the said land is also not found in the name of Haider Sheikh @ Sheikh Md. Haider Ali.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent-CCL submits that the said land was transferred to the CCL by the State Government in September 1972 after following due procedure of law and the CCL had also paid ‘Salami’ for the same on 28.09.1972. Thus, the claim of the petitioner for payment of compensation of the said land is not tenable. It is further submitted that the present writ petition has been filed after a huge delay and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed on the said score as well.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
8. On bare perusal of the reply of the respondent no. 5 (Annexure-2 to the supplementary affidavit dated 08.09.2023 filed on behalf of the petitioner), it is evident that the said land including other lands measuring an area of 9.68 acres were transferred to the CCL by the State Gove
P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N.
Vidya Devi Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board & Ors. Vs. T.T. Murali Babu
Inordinate delay undermines claims for compensation in land disputes unless justified.
The High Court may refuse relief due to delay and laches, particularly when third-party rights have accrued, prioritizing timely claims and the integrity of past compensations.
State's unauthorized occupation of private property without acquisition violates Article 300A; unsubstantiated donation claims rejected; delay and laches no bar to compensation for continuing wrong. ....
Landowners are entitled to due process and compensation for property utilized by the State without formal acquisition, as under Article 300A of the Constitution.
The court held that delay does not negate the right to compensation for property unlawfully appropriated by the State, emphasizing the need for due process and just compensation under established law....
(1) State cannot shield itself behind ground of delay and laches in such a situation – There cannot be a limitation to doing justice.(2) Acquisition of land – Nobody can be deprived of liberty or pro....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the right to compensation for expropriation of property is guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, and delay in seeking....
It is well-settled that under Article 226, power of High Court to issue an appropriate writ is discretionary.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.