Dularchand Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 2524 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  (Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
                 W.P. (C) No. 2847 of 2020
                         ........

1. Dularchand Yadav

2. Bobi Devi .... ..... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others .... ..... Respondents WITH W.P. (C) No. 2860 of 2020 ........

1. Nathan Saw
2. Bedu Saw                            ....    ..... Petitioners
                              Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Others        ....    ..... Respondents
                         WITH
                   W.P. (C) No. 2863 of 2020
                         ........
1. Umar Dev Yadav
2. Mathura Yadav
3. Mohan Yadav                         ....    ..... Petitioners
                              Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Others        ....    ..... Respondents
                         WITH
                   W.P. (C) No. 2884 of 2020
                         ........
1. Mathura Mahto
2. Vanshi Mahto                        ....    ..... Petitioners
                              Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Others        ....    ..... Respondents
                         WITH
                   W.P. (C) No. 2887 of 2020
                         ........
1. Mohammed Samsuddin
2. Maksud Alam
3. Mohammad Islam
4. Md. Wali                            ....    ..... Petitioners
                              Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Others        ....    ..... Respondents
                         WITH
                   W.P. (C) No. 2888 of 2020
                         ........
1. Dwarika Mahto
2. Basudev Yadav                       ....    ..... Petitioners
                              Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Others        ....    ..... Respondents
                         WITH
                   W.P. (C) No. 2890 of 2020
                         ........
1. Kapil Dev Yadav
2. Mahavir Yadav                       ....    ..... Petitioners
                              Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Others        ....    ..... Respondents
                         WITH


                W.P. (C) No. 2892 of 2020
                         ........
1. Narayan Saw
2. Tilak Saw
3. Bishun Saw
4. Baldev Saw                        ....            .....   Petitioners
                             Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Others      ....            ..... Respondents

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

For the Petitioners : Mr. Bhawesh Kumar, Advocate.

Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocate.

Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, Advocate.

Mr. Akata Anand, Advocate.

[In all cases].

For the Respondents / State : Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari, G.P.-III.

Mr. Mukul Kr. Singh, A.C. to G.P.-III.

[In W.P.(C) Nos. 2847/2020, 2887/2020, 2888/2020, 2890/2020] Mr. Praveen Akhouri, S.C.(Mines)-I Mr. Sharabhil Ahmad, A.C. to S.C. (Mines)-I [W.P. (C) Nos. 2860/2020, 2863/2020, 2884/2020, 2892/2020] ........

06/08.07.2022.

All these eight writ petitions are being taken together and heard together for disposal of the same.

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Bhawesh Kumar assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Ravi Kumar and learned counsel for the respondents / State, Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari, G.P.-III assisted by learned A.C. to G.P.-III, Mr. Mukul Kumar Singh and learned counsel, Mr. Praveen Akhouri, S.C. (Mines)-I assisted by learned A.C. to S.C. (Mines)-I, Mr. Sharabhil Ahmad.

It appears that these writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners, above named, for grant of adequate compensation from the date of dispossession from their raiyati land, as the respondents i.e. the Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand without acquisition of the land constructed black road over their raiyati land situated in the district of Koderma and the land has been used by changing its nature by the respondents authorities without having any legal sanctity. The details of lands are given hereinbelow:-

Case No. Name of Petitioners Mouza Khata Plot Area No. No(s) (Approx.) W.P.(C) 1. Dularchand Yadav Gurha 22 1360 30 decimals No. 2. Bobi Devi 2847/2020 W.P.(C) 1. Nathan Saw Murkmanai 121 81 45 decimals No. 2. Bedu Saw 2860/2020 W.P.(C) 1. Umar Dev Yadav Gurha 56 1359 50 decimals No. 2. Mathura Yadav 2863/2020 3. Mohan Yadav W.P.(C) 1. Mathura Mahto Gurha 49 1363 28 decimals No. 2. Vanshi Mahto 2884/2020 W.P.(C) 1.Mohammed Mukrmanai 1 31 55 decimals No. Samsuddin 2887/2020 2.Maksud Alam 3.Mohammad Islam 4.Md. Wali W.P.(C) 1. Dwarika Mahto Gurha 47 1345 53 decimals No. 2. Basudev Yadav 1346 2888/2020 1355 W.P.(C) 1. Kapil Dev Yadav Gurha 51 1353 31 decimals No. 2. Mahavir Yadav 2890/2020 W.P.(C) 1. Narayan Saw Gurha 48 1347 42 decimals No. 2. Tilak Saw 2892/2020 3. Bishun Saw 4. Baldev Saw

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Bhawesh Kumar assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Ravi Kumar has submitted, that for widening of the road, the petitioners' raiyati land were forcibly taken by the respondents-State particularly by the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Koderma without initiating any proceeding under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 either invoking the provisions of Sections 9 and 40 for emergent acquisition of land or by issuing notification under Section 11 of the said Act, 2013.

The similar matter came before this Hon'ble Court for such act of the respondent-authorities in the case of Basudeo Rana and others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others vide W.P.(C) No.7709 of 2011. The Hon'ble Court while disposing the said writ petition on 22.04.2014 has recorded as under-

"The respondents have filed counter affidavit dated 22.4.2014 and made evasive statements. However, nowhere it has been stated that the said land is not a Raiyati land and the same does not belong to the petitioners. Almost admitting the petitioners' claim, they have stated that now they are trying to resolve the matter and are taking steps for payment of compensation.

"Having heard learned counsel and considered the facts and materials on record, I find that this is a case of administrative excess, hostility and arbitrariness for trampling the right of the citizens and forcibly constructing road on the Raiyati land of the petitioners without taking their consent or without taking any steps for acquisition of the said land in accordance with law.

Such hostility, acts and deeds of the public officers erodes the peoples' faith in democracy and respect for rule of law. Though the matter appears to be forcible dispossession of some persons from a small piece of land, it has colossal adverse effect on the civilized society and peace living denizens and onslaught on liberty and right of citizens guaranteed by the Constitution of India.

Though now the respondents, feeling the pulse of the situation, have offered to resolve the matter and pay compensation, the expression and the statement made in the affidavit does not demonstrate any sign of remorse and repentance for such afrocious step by public officer of a Welfare State. Such instance cannot be simply ignored by giving opportunity to wipe out the adverse effect and offering compensation after forcibly dislodging the petitioners from their Raiyati land. Such incidents warrant due attention of the authority at the helm of the affairs so that effective measures be assured for peoples' safety of life and property and for preventing recurrence of unbecoming administrative actions.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma to assess the amount of compensation according to the legal provisions prescribed for determining the valuation of land for acquisition, within a period of four weeks and determine and pay compensation adding the equal amount for causing mental agony, embarrassment and denigration to the petitioners by forcibly dispossessing them from their land and for putting them to continued loss of crops and harassment for years and depriving them of enjoying the legal rights of ownership of the property. The respondents shall also pay Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioners as the consolidated cost of this writ petition within the said period.

(emphasis supplied) If the amount of compensation, as directed above, is not paid within the said period, the petitioner is entitled to get compensatory interest @ 10% per annum in addition to the statutory interest from the date the petitioners were dispossessed from the land till the date of final payment."

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Bhawesh Kumar assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Ravi Kumar has further submitted, that in the counter-affidavit, respondents have admitted, that the land is raiyati land of these petitioners and they have also admitted that they are taking steps for payment of the compensation in some of the cases pursuant to filing of the writ petition and they have also issued letter for payment of compensation, but without interest.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Bhawesh Kumar assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Ravi Kumar has further submitted, that this act of the respondents is also disrespect to the Court's order, which has been passed on 22.04.2014 in W.P.(C) No.7709 of 2011. Even after perusing such order nothing has happened to the State Officer(s), who ought to have adopted remedial method by rectifying their mistake by paying compensation to the person. This shows that they have emboldened themselves and have no care for the law of the land and thus, their administrative behaviour is such that they are doing anything as per their whims without following process of law, as such, this Court may pass necessary order.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Bhawesh Kumar assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Ravi Kumar has furher submitted, that whatever the co-ordinate Bench has granted is an appropriate amount, but instead of paying the compensation and interest from the State exchequer, it ought to have been paid from the salary of the erring officer(s) because the revenue of the State exchequer, is the tax amount of the common citizen, which cannot be paid in such manner of the administrative lapses of the Government Officials, as such, this Court may award the compensation amount with interest @ 18 % as held by the Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Jain and Another vs. State of U.P. through Collector reported in (2007) 2 SCC 461, wherein simple interest @ 18% has been awarded from the date of dispossession till the date of actual payment.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Bhawesh Kumar assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Ravi Kumar has further submitted, that Coordinate Bench of this Court has passed an order of consolidated cost to the writ petitioners to be Rs.10,000/-, but the Apex Court in the recent judgment passed in the case of Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others reported in (2020) 2 SCC 569 has directed the State to pay legal cost and expenses at the cost of Rs.10 lacs, as such, this Court may enhance the same and pass necessary order.

Learned counsel for the respondents-State, Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari, G.P.-III assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Mukul Kumar Singh and learned counsel for the respondents-State, Mr. Praveen Akhauri, SC (Mines)-I assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Sharabhil Ahmad have submitted, that payment process has already been initiated and notice for payment of the same has already issued, as such, this Court may not imposed cost of the litigation exorbitantly and interest from the personal pocket of the erring officer(s).

Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record including the counter-affidavit filed by the State.

This Court is surprised to see the conduct of the Respondents- State, particularly, the Road Construction Department and that too of the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Koderma. After filing of the Writ Petition vide W.P.(C) No.7709 of 2011 with regard to illegality committed by the same office of the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Koderma, nothing has been done by Government Officials, even after passing of the order dated 22.04.2014 passed in W.P.(C) No.7709 of 2011, which has attained finality, as the same has never been assailed by the State authority. They have not introspected their act and thus, they have again committed the same mistake in the year 2014 and have not realized this fact till the filing of present Writ Petitions in the year 2020. Not only this, they have not paid the said amount, till the matters are pending before this Court. The State is a welfare State and the officials should work for the citizen of the State and the officials cannot become Monarch of the State, rather serve the people of the State, as such, their act in the present cases is highly deprecated by this Court.

The Road Construction Department from the post of Principal Secretary to the post of Junior Engineer are responsible for such illegality in dispossessing the rightful raiyats / persons from their raiyati land, as the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is there and subsequently, Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into effect, as such, this shows that these officers have no respect for the law of land, which has been enacted in the Parliament. The respondent-authorities have not followed the provisions of Section 38 of the Act of 2013, which may profitably quoted hereunder :-

"38. Power to take possession of land to be acquired - (1) The Collector shall take possession of land after ensuring that full payment of compensation as well as rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements are paid or tendered to the entitled persons within a period of three months for the compensation and a period of six months for the monetary part of rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements listed in the Second Schedule commencing from the date of the award made under Section 30;

Provided that the components of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Package in the Second and Third Schedules that relate to infrastructural entitlements shall be provided within a period of eighteen months from the date of the award:

Provided further that in case of acquisition of land for irrigation or hydel project, being a public purpose, the rehabilitation and resettlement shall be completed six months prior to submergence of the lands acquired (2) The Collector shall be responsible for ensuring that the rehabilitation and resettlement process is completed in all its aspects before displacing the affected families.

Thus, this Court is taking serious view of the matter though not enhancing the compensation as it has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others reported in (2020) 2 SCC 569, but only granting equal amount of compensation for causing mental agony, embarrassment and declaration to the petitioners by forcible dispossession from their land and putting them in continuous loss of crops and harassment for years as granted by Coordinate Bench in case of similar nature in the same district of Koderma in W.P. (C) No. 7709 of 2011.

This Court has also considered that loss of crops is loss of Nation and these officers have no respect for the same.

Under the aforesaid circumstances, equal amount of compensation shall be added in the compensation of the land while paying to the petitioners, but equal amount along with interest shall be paid @ 7.5% per annum to quantify the compensation, as held by the Apex Court, in the case of Dharampal and Sons vs. U.P. State

Road Transport Corporation & Others, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 208, though it was a matter of Motor vehicle accident, but on the point of quantifying the interest, the Apex Court has considered it to be @ 7.5% per annum.

However, these two parts of the amount i.e. equal amount of compensation for causing mental agony, embarrassment, declaration to the petitioners because of forcible dispossession and loss of crops as well as interest shall be charged and paid by the State, but the same shall be recovered from the erring officer(s) in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of communication of a copy of this order.

Further, cost of Rs.50,000/- shall be paid in each Writ Petition to the petitioners by the State, which shall also be recovered from the salary of the erring officer(s).

Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are allowed. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the office of the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, the Principal Secretary, Department of Road Construction, Government of Jharkhand, the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma as well as the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Koderma, through FAX or e-mail at once.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sandeep-Sunil-Jay-R.S./-