Deepak Kumar Poddar vs State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 2512 Jhar

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    W.P. (C) No.3534 of 2023
                                -----

Deepak Kumar Poddar .......... Petitioner.

-Versus-

1. State of Jharkhand, through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

2. Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi.

3. District Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi.

4. Additional Collector, Ranchi.

5. Circle Officer, Angara, District Ranchi.

.......... Respondents.

-----

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohitashya Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shashank Saurav, A.C. to G.P.III

-----

Order No.02 Date: 01.08.2023

1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to show cause as to how and under what authority they are not paying compensation to the petitioner despite the fact that his land appertaining to Khata no.177, R.S. plot no.3426, measuring an area of 4 decimals, village Hesal, Thana no.19, Circle Angara, District Ranchi has been acquired for the purpose of Ranchi Ring Road Expansion Project and to that effect, an award has already been prepared vide L.A. Case no.241 of 2017-18. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith pay the entire amount of compensation along with statutory interest to the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has the right, title and interest over the land in question, the details of which have been given in different paragraphs of the writ petition. It has also been stated in the writ petition that as per the family partition, entire land of Khata no.177, R.S. plot no.3426, measuring an area of 1.85 acres fell in the share of the petitioner. The said oral family partition was also reduced in writing vide memorandum of family arrangement dated 23rd April, 2011. Earlier, major part of the aforesaid land to the extent of 1.45 acres was acquired in connection with L.A. Case no.51 of 2005-06. Since the amount of compensation fixed for acquisition of the said part of land was quite less, the dispute raised by the petitioner was referred to the court of Sub Judge-II-cum-Land Acquisition Judge, Ranchi, which was registered as L.A. Case no.05 of 2012 and the same

-2- W.P.(C) No.3534/2023

was disposed of vide judgment dated 23rd February, 2019 by suitably enhancing the quantum of compensation.

3. The present writ petition, however, is confined to 04 decimals of land out of the said land, which was acquired for construction of ring road, Ranchi. The possession of the said part of land (04 decimals) has also been taken by the respondent authorities.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that though an award for Rs.39,14,132/- has already been prepared in favour of the petitioner in connection with L.A. Case no.241 of 2017-18, he has not yet been paid the said amount. The respondent no.3 has also not assigned any reason for withholding the said amount of compensation. The petitioner represented the respondent nos.2 and 3, raising the aforesaid grievance, however, the same was not responded by them, which has compelled him to prefer the present writ petition.

5. Mr. Shashank Saurav, learned A.C. to G.P.III appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the aforesaid contention of the petitioner is required to be factually examined by the respondent no.3 and, therefore, if he prefers a fresh representation on the present issue before the said respondent, an appropriate decision within a time frame will be taken.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of the prayer made in the writ petition, without entering into merit of the case, the petitioner is given liberty to prefer a fresh representation along with relevant documents before the respondent no.3 on the present issue. On receipt of the said representation, the respondent no.3 after verifying the relevant records and on providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his representative shall take appropriate informed decision in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of filing of the representation.

7. It goes without saying that if the respondent no.3 finds that there is no legal impediment in releasing the awarded amount of compensation in favour of the petitioner, the same shall be paid to him within four weeks thereafter.

8. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid liberty and direction.

(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Sanjay/