Raunak Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 1568 Jhar

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             [Civil Writ Jurisdiction]
                             W.P.(C) No. 1211 of 2019

       Raunak Ansari                                                .... .. ... Petitioner
                                 Versus
       The State of Jharkhand & Ors.                            .. ... ... Respondents
                                   ...........

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO .........

       For the Petitioner                   : Mr. Akash Bhushan, Advocate
       For the respondents-State            : Mr. Mithilesh Singh, G.A.-IV
                                   ......
07/ 19.04.2022.
              Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the respondents-State, Mr. Mithilesh Singh, G.A.-IV has submitted that counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent nos.1 to 4 through Ravindra Kumar, Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department (Road Division Lohardaga) as the previous officer, Sri Jagat Narayan Sinha has already superannuated, as such, this counter-affidavit has been filed by the Executive Engineer.

Learned counsel for the respondents-State has further submitted that road has been constructed during erstwhile State of Bihar and the same was only maintained. The petitioner and/or his forefather donated the land in question and at that time the land had no value. Subsequently the writ petition has been filed before this Court in the year, 2019 on the ground that the rent is being paid by the petitioner for the said land.

Learned counsel for the respondents-State has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sayed maqbool Ali vs. State of U.P. & another reported in (2011) 15 SCC 383, para 12 of which may profitably be quoted hereunder:-

"12. 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 land holders 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."

Learned counsel for the respondents-State has further submitted that co-

ordinate Bench of this Court has considered the same in W.P.(C) No.1902 of 2021

(Akhileshwar Prasad vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others) and dismissed the writ petition, as such, present writ petition may also be dismissed. Upon which, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that two weeks time may be granted so as to examine the judgment and to file reply to the supplementary counter-affidavit filed by the State. Put up this case after two weeks under the appropriate heading. Let the supplementary counter-affidavit be placed on record. Office is directed to accept the same.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) R.S.