Jharkhand High Court
Sarswati Devi vs M/S B.C.C.L. Through Its Chief ... on 17 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
W.P.(C) No. 4792 of 2008
........
Sarswati Devi .... ..... Petitioner
Versus
M/s B.C.C.L. Through its Chief Managing Director, Dhanbad & Ors.
.... ..... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 4801 of 2008
........
Bedi Mahto .... ..... Petitioner
Versus
M/s B.C.C.L. through its Chief Managing Director, Dhanbad & Ors.
.... ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through : Video Conferencing)
............
For the Petitioner : Mr. M. B. Lal, Advocate.
For the Respondent /State : Mr. Nawal Kishore Pandey, A.C. to
Mr. P. C. Roy, S.C.(L&C)-I
For the B.C.C.L. : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate.
........
04/17.11.2021.
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
On the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M. B. Lal
W.P.(C) No.4801/2008 has also been notified today as both the writ
petitions have common questions.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the case of
petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4792/2008 (Sarswati Devi, wife of late Santosh
Modi) as well as W.P.(C) No.4801/2008 (Bedi Mahto, son of late Jai Ram
Mahto) is that land has been given to them by the Bhudan Yagya
Committee, which has been brought on record as Annexure-2. The said
land has been acquired by the B.C.C.L. without paying any compensation
to the petitioners. However, it appears from the counter affidavit filed by
the B.C.C.L., that they have not admitted the right, title and interest of the
petitioners over the land, rather they have claimed that the land in question
was purchased by B.C.C.L. (Puti Balihari project) on 17.02.1986 from
Jhari Mahato, Biru Mahato and Rati Lal Mahto after paying them adequate
and appropriate price and was transferred by virtue of registered deed of
sale dated 20.03.1986.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since the
title has not admitted by the B.C.C.L., as such, petitioners may be given
liberty to avail legal remedy available under the law, so as to establish
their case and if the title is being given in favour of the petitioners by the
competent court of law, the compensation may be paid to the petitioners
by the B.C.C.L.
Learned counsel for the B.C.C.L., Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta has
submitted that the case of the B.C.C.L. is squarely covered by judgment
passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajsthan Vs. Bhawani
Singh and Ors. reported in 1993 supplement (1) SCC 306 and has
submitted that B.C.C.L. (Putki Balihari Project) has purchased this land
from Jhari Mahato, Biru Mahato and Rati Lal Mahato. Unless the title of
Jhari Mahato, Biru Mahato and Rati Lal Mahto are not disturbed by a
competent court of law and the title of the writ petitioners are affirmed by
a competent court of civil law on the basis of settlement or donation made
by Bhudan Yagya Committee, petitioners cannot be entitled for any relief
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Nawal Kishore Pandey, A.C. to
Mr. P. C. Roy, S.C.(L&C)-I has submitted that it is a dispute where the
petitioners have to establish their right, title and interest over the land in
question for maintainability of writ petitions, as such, writ petitions may
be disposed of.
Considering the rival submission of the parties, looking into the fact
and circumstances, since the compensation has been claimed by the
petitioners, it is duty of the petitioners to prove their title as the title has
not been admitted by the B.C.C.L., as such, this Court is not inclined to
entertain such writ petitions.
However, liberty is given to the petitioners to prefer appropriate
legal remedy before the competent court of law to establish their title on
the basis of settlement or donation made by the Bhudan Yagya Committee
and thereafter petitioners can claim compensation for acquisition of land
against the B.C.C.L.
Accordingly, these writ petitions are hereby disposed of.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Jay/-
