Gauri Nath Rajak vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 3084 Jhar

                                 1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                W.P.(C) No. 3921 of 2021

Gauri Nath Rajak                              ...     ...      Petitioner
                                  Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro
3. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Bokaro...   ...      Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
                       -----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Jay Prakash Pandey, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Shashank Saurav, AC to GP-III

-----

Order No. 07 Dated: 22.08.2023

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner in lieu of acquisition of the land appertaining to Khata No. 85, Plot No. 117, measuring an area of 0.12 acre, Plot No. 129, measuring an area of 0.13 acre , Plot No. 130, measuring an area of 0.87 acre in total 1.12 acres (hereinafter referred to as "the said land") which was recorded in the name of Kartik Dhobi and the petitioner being one of the descendants of the said recorded raiyat, is entitled for appropriate compensation.

2. The main contention of the petitioner as raised in the present writ petition is that after issuance of notice in L.A. Case No. 02/2005-06 in the name of recorded raiyat Kartik Dhobi for acquisition of the said land, no further action was taken in that regard and the petitioner being the descendants of the said recorded raiyat is deprived of the lawful compensation amount.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 stating inter alia that the petitioner has concealed the material facts in the writ petition. In fact, he had filed an application under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in connection with L.A. Case No. 02/2005-06 raising dispute with regard to payment of compensation for the land in question. Subsequent to filing of the said application, the respondent no. 3 - the District Land Acquisition Officer, Bokaro referred the matter to the Land Acquisition Judge, Bokaro under Section 30 of the Act, 1894 which was instituted as L.A. Ref. Case No. 01/2007. It has further been stated that the Land Acquisition Judge, Bokaro subsequently passed judgment dated

04.08.2011, whereby the petitioner was found entitled for half of the awarded compensation amount.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the aforesaid statements made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3, particularly that Land Acquisition Court, Bokaro has already passed judgment dated 04.08.2011 in L.A. Ref. Case No. 01/2007 and the said fact has been suppressed by the petitioner in the writ petition, the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Manish