IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

L.P.A. No. 114 of 2014

Bhumi Adigrahan Visthapan Avam

Punarvas Sahgharsh Morcha

…

Appellant

Vs.

The State of Jharkhand & Ors

…

Respondents

----

CORAM :

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

----

For the Appellant

: Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Tiwary, Advocate

Mrs. Kavita Singh, Advocate

For the Respondent-State : Mr. V.K.Prasad, S.C. (L&C)

For the Respondent No.7

: Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate

----

Order No.04

Dated 12^th May, 2014

This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the

order dated 12.02.2014 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5732 of 2012.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has

submitted that though lands in seven villages (namely Batsara,

Pathekhurd, Kathautia, Garikhas, Kajri, Sika and Sakhui) were

acquired by invoking the urgency Clause under Section 17 of the

Land Acquisition Act, the compensation amount deposited was

unconscionably low and inadequate and also much lower than

the market value of the land and since the urgency clause could

not have been invoked, therefore, the association of the Raiyats of

the villages namely Bhumi Adigrahan Visthapan Avam Punarvas

Sahgharsh Morcha was compelled to approach this Court. It is

submitted that analogous writ petitions being W.P.(C) No.5749 of

2012, W.P.(C) No. 8041 of 2012 and W.P.(C) No. 1719 of 2012

have also been filed and the order of status quo passed in W.P.(C)

No. 5732 of 2012 dated 03.01.2013 has been extended vide order

dated 24.07.2013, in above mentioned all four writ petitions. It is

submitted that after the order dated 03.01.2013 was passed, the

respondent No.7 filed an application being I.A. No. 326 of 2013

for vacating the interim order dated 03.01.2013. The stay

application was taken up for hearing on 12.02.2014 and in view

of the statement made by the counsel appearing for the

respondent No.7, the learned Single Judge held that no interim

order is required in the case. The learned Single Judge recorded

that the respondent No.7 has assured that there shall be no work

over inhabitable land and the work carried on by them would not

cause any damage to the residential houses as well as the

standing crops as the respondent No.7 would not use any

explosive near the residential houses. The learned counsel

appearing for the appellant submits that specific order passed by

this Court on 03.01.2013 and continued by order dated

24.07.2013, have not been considered by the learned Single

Judge inasmuch as though in order dated 24.07.2013 it has been

recorded by this Court that the issue involved in this writ petition

is of larger public importance, in the present proceeding the

learned Single Judge without adverting to the issues involved in

the case vacated the interim order dated 03.01.2013 and thus,

acted as an Appellate Forum/Court..

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent State of

Jharkhand Mr. V.K.Prasad has submitted that if the order dated

12.02.2014 in I.A. No. 3748 of 2012 and I.A. No. 326 of 2013 is

interfered with, the State would suffer huge financial loss

inasmuch as, it would be deprived of the royalty which it is

receiving from the respondent No.7.

The learned counsel Mr. Anup Kumar Mehta appearing for

the respondent No.7 has submitted that more than Rs.100 crores

has been deposited in lieu of the land acquired from the villagers

and the respondent No.7 is not carrying out any blasting near the

residential houses of the awardees. The learned counsel for the

appellant disputes the same.

Since correctness of the order dated 12.02.2014 is under

challenge and contentious issues have been raised in this Letters

Patent Appeal, we are of the opinion that it would serve the

interest of justice if there shall be ad-interim stay of impugned

order dated 12.02.2014 till the next date of hearing. It is made

clear that respondent Nos. 1 to 7