Akhileshwar Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 4645 Jhar

                                          1

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                       W.P.(C) No. 1902 of 2021

      Akhileshwar Prasad                               ...      ...      Petitioner
                                           Versus
      1. The State of Jharkhand
      2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Land and Revenue, State of
         Jharkhand
      3. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau
      4. The Additional Collector, Land and Revenue, Palamau
      5. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Palamau
      6. The Circle Officer, Pandwa, District Palamau
                                                     ....   ...  Respondents
             CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
             For the Petitioner  : Mr. Aman Kumar, Advocate
             For the Respondents : Mr. Shray Mishra, A.C. to G.A.-III
                                      -----

Order No. 03 Dated: 07.12.2021

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 26.10.2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau (respondent no.-3) in Misc. Case No. 01 of 2020-21 whereby the petitioner's claim for compensation in relation to construction of government PCC road over his raiyati land has been rejected.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land appertaining to Khata no.29, plot no.19 and Khata no.22, plot no.195, measuring area of 33 decimals situated at village Majhigaon, P.O. Lamipatra, P.S. Pandwa, Thana no. 161, District - Palamau (hereinafter referred as "the said land") is raiyati land of the petitioner which has been recorded in his father's name-Late Nand Kumar Prasad- who had acquired the same through amicable partition among the co- sharers. The respondents without taking consent of the petitioner or without initiating any lawful acquisition proceeding, constructed government PCC road over the said land in the year 2017. The petitioner represented the respondent no.3 for payment of appropriate compensation for using the said raiyati land of the petitioner, however, no heed was paid to the said representation. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 506 of 2020 which was disposed of by this court vide order dated 02.03.2020 giving him liberty to file a fresh representation before the respondent no. 3, who on receipt of the said representation, was directed to decide the same by an informed order after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and on making suitable enquiry. The petitioner accordingly filed representation before the respondent no.3 on 21.03.2020, however the same has been rejected by the said respondent vide impugned order dated 26.10.2020. It is further submitted that in the impugned order, the respondent no. 3 has recorded some wrong

information provided by the villagers closely related to the contractor who forcefully constructed the said PCC road over his raiyati land and hence the same is prejudicial to the right of the petitioner. The respondent no. 3 has observed in the impugned order that the family members of the petitioner while selling their land have shown the same as road having no concern with the petitioner. However, since the petitioner is still paying the rent of the said land to the government and demand of the same is continuing in name of his father, respondent no. 3 has wrongly held that the said land was donated in charity by his father. Though, the respondent no. 3 has observed that Late Nand Kumar Prasad on whose name demand of land is running, has six sons including the petitioner but only the petitioner has raised the claim for compensation, yet he did not appreciate that the land was amicably partitioned and now the petitioner is the sole owner of the said land. The petitioner had raised objection before the respondent no.3 as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, however the impugned order has been passed ignoring the provisions of the said Act. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 3 did not publish any notification for the purpose of acquisition of the said land of the petitioner and the authorities forcefully constructed PCC road over it. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention, has placed reliance on a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tukaram Kana Joshi & Others through Power of Attorney Holder Vs. M.I.D.C & Others reported in (2013) 1 SCC 353.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner's claim is that the respondents have forcefully constructed PCC road over the said land without following due process of law for acquisition as well as without making payment of compensation to him for using the said land.

4. The impugned order dated 26.10.2020 suggests that the respondent no.3 after perusing the reports of the Circle Officer, Pandwa (the respondent no. 6) and the Deputy Development Commissioner, Palamau, has observed that the said land was being used as road by the villagers for more than seven decades. There was a Grade- I road on the said land for about thirty years and a pacca drain along the said road was constructed from the MLA fund in the year 2004. The villagers, on enquiry stated that the said land was orally donated by the ancestors of the petitioner. Moreover, the ancestors of the petitioner have shown the said land as road by mentioning the boundary of adjacent plots in different sale deeds. The respondent no. 3 has also observed in the impugned order

dated 26.10.2020 that neither at the time of construction of Grade-I road nor at the time of construction of PCC road, the petitioner or his agnates raised any objection. Had the petitioner raised objection during the said period, the same would have been appropriately resolved. In course of hearing of Misc. Case No. 01 of 2020-21, the petitioner himself stated before the respondent no. 3 that the villagers had been using the said land as road for more than sixty years which goes till the river. The petitioner failed to show any document before the respondent no.3 so as to suggest his exclusive title over the said land.

5. I have also gone through the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tukaram Kana Joshi (supra). It is well settled that the State should not be allowed to deprive a citizen of his property without adhering to the law. It has further been held in the said case that no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves before it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of latches. Discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. The question of condonation of delay has to be decided on the basis of the facts of the case at hand as the same may vary from case to case. In the said case, the claim of the appellants were that they were continuously pursuing their remedies by approaching different authorities of the government.

6. In the case of Syed Maqbool Ali v. State of U.P & Another reported in (2011) 15 SCC 383, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"12. The High Courts should also be cautious in entertaining writ petitions filed decades after the dispossession, seeking directions for acquisition and payment of compensation. It is not uncommon for villagers to offer/donate some part of their lands voluntarily for a public purpose which would benefit them or the community as for example, construction of an access road to the village or their property, or construction of a village tank or a bund to prevent flooding/erosion. When they offer their land for such public purpose, the land would be of little or negligible value. But decades later, when land values increase, either on account of passage of time or on account of developments or improvements carried out by the State, the landholders come up with belated claims alleging that their lands were taken without acquisition and without their consent. When such claims are made after several decades, the State would be at a disadvantage to contest the claim, as it may not have the records to show in what circumstances the lands were given/donated and whether the land was given voluntarily. Therefore, belated writ petitions, without proper explanation for the delay, are liable to be dismissed. Be that as it may."

7. In the aforesaid case, Their Lordships have observed that in villages, it is not uncommon for the villagers to donate some part of their land for public purpose and have further held that the High Court should be cautious in entertaining belated claims of compensation in lieu of acquisition of land as it would be very difficult for the State to contest such belated claims on account of

non-availability of records to deny the claim of the aggrieved person. It has also been held that there must be a proper explanation for making belated claim of compensation.

8. In the case in hand, the petitioner and his co-sharers did not raise any objection against use of the said land as a road, rather their conduct reflects that they had readily accepted use of the same as road from much earlier. For the first time in the year 2018, the petitioner raised objection against the construction of road over the said land. No reason has been explained by the petitioner as to why he did not raise objection at the time of construction of the road itself. Contrary to the claim of the petitioner, the villagers have stated during enquiry that the said land was donated by the petitioner's ancestors for construction of road which appears to be more convincing under the present facts and circumstances of the case.

9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this court does not find sufficient reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 26.10.2020 passed by the respondent no.3 in Misc. Case No. 01 of 2020-21. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Ritesh/AFR