Jharkhand High Court
Wajahat Hussain vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 23 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
W.P.(C) No. 1152 of 2019
Wajahat Hussain ..... ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors. .... .... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No.1160 of 2019
Md. Kalimuddin Ansari .... ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors. ..... ..... Respondents
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
-------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Advocate
(in both the cases)
For the Respondents/State :Mr. Aditya Raman, AC to GA.-III
(in W.P.(C) No.1152 of 2019)
Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, SC(L&C)-I
(in W.P.(C) No.1160 of 2019)
--------
The matter is being taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel
for the parties have no objection with it and submitted that audio and video
qualities are good.
Order No.07 /Dated: 23nd November, 2022
Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta.
Both the writ petitions are being heard together as common
questions have arisen in these cases.
Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta has
submitted, that State has constructed road in the year 2001-2002 and the
petitioners land has never been acquired nor compensation has been paid and
thus the action of the respondents-authorities is colourable exercise of power
for which the State must pay compensation to the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the respondents/State Mr. Ratnesh Kumar
SC(L&C)-I and learned counsel Mr. Manoj Kumar, G.A-III assisted by Mr.
Aditya Raman, AC to GA.-III have opposed the prayer and have submitted
that in the counter-affidavit they have annexed the villager's representation
and the land was given by the villager in year 2001-02 which was used as
pagdandi in initial stage. Subsequently in the year 2001-02, the metallic road
was prepared and for that cause of action the petitioners after 18 years came
before this Hon'ble Court.
Learned counsel for the respondents/State have relied upon the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Maqbool
Ali vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another Reported in (2011) 15 SCC 383
para-12 of which may be profitably be quoted hereunder:-
"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."
Considering the same, in view of judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Syed Maqbool Ali (supra), whereby it has been
held that 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, the petitioners are not entitled for compensation.
Accordingly, both the writ petitions are hereby dismissed.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Rohit/-
