Jharkhand High Court
Raj Narayan Singh vs The State Of Jharkhad & Ors on 26 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
[Civil Writ Jurisdiction]
W. P. (C) No. 5126 of 2012
Raj Narayan Singh .... .. ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Jharkhad & Ors. .. ... ... Respondent(s)
...........
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
[Through- Video Conferencing]
.........
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amarendra Kumar, Advocate.
For the Resp./State : Mr. P. C. Roy, S.C. ( L&C)-I
..........
10 / 26.11.2021. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
Mr. Amarendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has
submitted that the instant Writ Petition has been filed on 30.08.2012 for a direction
upon the respondents to pay adequate compensation in accordance with Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, to the petitioner, whose land being 0.95 acre in area within
Khata No.13, Plot No.72 and 75 at Village Paharidih P.S. Jainagar, District-
Koderma, has been illegally usurped by the State, without following the due
procedure of law of land acquisition.
Mr. Amarendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further
submitted that admittedly the land, in question belongs to the petitioner and the name
of ancestors of the petitioner has been shown in the said khata number where Adarsh
Rajkiya Madhya Vidyalya, Jainagar is running since its establishment in the year
1955-56 but the Government has not paid any compensation to that effect. The
petitioner raised this issue before the various authorities including the Deputy
Commissioner, Koderma and the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma gave a direction to
the Circle Officer, Jainagar on 11.12.2007 to enquire into the matter, but no chit of
paper with regard to acquisition or with regard to payment of compensation has been
given by the State to the petitioner.
Mr. Amarendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in support
of his submission has relied upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case
of D. B. Basnett (Dead) through Legal Representatives vs. Collector, East District,
Gangtok, Sikkim and Anr., reported in (2020) 4 SCC 572. Paras 11 and 12 of
which may profitably be quoted hereunder :-
"11.Be that as it may, the fact remains, as noticed by the High Court,
that it is not the case of the respondents that they had adverse possession, but
that they had acquired the land through due process and had paid
compensation for the same. We agree with the High Court that there is no plea
even of adverse possession by the respondent. We are not to be detained by the
same in this appeal.
12.We are in complete agreement with this view and for this reason also the
plea of adverse possession really does not arise."
Mr. P. C. Roy, learned S.C. (L&C)-I appearing for the State has submitted that
counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 has been filed by the District
Education Officer cum District Superintendent of Education, Koderma on
22.11.2021. Learned counsel for the State has referred Para-6 of the counter-affidavit
for waiving of cost of Rs.15,000/- as on 22.10.2021 time was granted till 12.11.2021
to file counter-affidavit, failing which, the State has to pay a cost of Rs.15,000/- to
the petitioner, but subsequently this Hon'ble Court has declared 12.11.2021 as
Holiday, as such, the counter-affidavit which was already prepared could not be filed,
as such, the said cost may be waived off.
Mr. P. C. Roy, learned S.C. (L&C)-I appearing for the State has further
submitted that from perusal of Paras 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 of the counter-affidavit, it
appears that after a long delay, in a stale matter, petitioner is coming forward for
getting compensation of the land on which the school has been constructed at the
time of father of the petitioner when he has not even taken birth and the petitioner
has not disclosed his age to raise such dispute, as such, the claim of the petitioner is a
stale claim which may not be allowed by this Hon'ble Court.
Considering the same, learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to file a
copy of certificate showing his date of birth of the petitioner before this Court.
Counsel for the Respondent/State is directed to file supplementary counter-
affidavit in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court, as stated above.
Put up this case after four weeks.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Sandeep/
