Jharkhand High Court
Shahana Parween vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 19 July, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.5082 of 2017
Shahana Parween, wife of Naz Akthar, resident of 215, Modern Tyre
Building, Bhuli Road, P.O. & P.S. - Nirsa, Dhanbad
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, the Secretary,
Revenue & Land Reform Department, Government of Jharkhand,
Ranchi
2. National Highways Authority of India, Ministry of Shipping, Road
Transport and Highways, Govt. of India, through its Chief
Executive, Section 10, Dwarka, P.O. & P.S. Dwarka, New Delhi
3. National Highway Authority of India through its Project Director,
Bokaro, P.O. Bokaro, P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro
4. Land Acquisition Officer-cum-competent Authority of National
Highway Act, P.O., P.S. & District Bokaro
5. Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, P.O., P.S. & District - Bokaro
6. Circle officer, Bokaro, P.O., P.S. & District - Bokaro
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhay Kr. Mishra, Adv.
: Mr. Krishna Prajapati, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Mithilesh Singh, Advocate
For the NHAI : Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, Adv.
---
11/19.07.2023 Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:
"a. For the issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or
a writ in the nature of mandamus direction the respondent authorities
to pay fair compensation to the petitioner as such the petitioner land
has been acquired for widening of National Highway no.32 upon which
the petitioner was in peaceful possession.
And /or
b. For issuance of such other writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) in the
nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 04.04.2016 (Annexure
- 7) whereby and whereunder the land of the petitioner was
recommended to be transferred to respondent authority without paying
the compensation of the land.
And /or
c. During the pendency of the writ application the further proceedings
may be kept in abeyance/stayed.
And / or
d. For issuance of such other writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) as this
Hon'ble Court may think just and proper in the facts and circumstances
of the case doing conscionable justice to the petitioners."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
property involved in the present case which is relating to Mauza -
Dumarjor, Thana No.28, Khata No.43, Plot No.495 area 0.03 acres. He
has also submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the said property
by virtue of registered sale deed no.3333 dated 22.03.2010 to the extent
of area 8.5 decimal. He submits that the predecessor in interest of the
petitioner had obtained the property from the ex-zamindar through sada
hukumnama and thereafter it changed hands through registered deeds
and after the purchase of the property, the petitioner also got the
property mutated in his name. He submits that this is apparent from the
report of the Circle Officer annexed at Annexure - 5 to the writ
petition.
4. The learned counsel submits that the property was subject
matter of acquisition by National Highway Authority for widening of
road being NH No.32 and therefore, when the compensation has not
been paid, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. He has also
submitted that the petitioner has also challenged the order dated
04.04.2016 (Annexure - 7) whereby the land of the petitioner was
recommended to be transferred to the respondent authority without
paying compensation of land.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-
NHAI has submitted that the property, as reported by the State,
belonged to the State and they had agreed to transfer the land in favour
of NHAI without any payment of compensation.
6. He has also referred to the policy and has submitted that as per
the policy, if a person is staying on government land for quite some
time and has also built structure etc. and is having civic facilities like
water supply, electricity, road etc. they are entitled for ex gratia
payment. Learned counsel submits that assessment of ex-gratia
payment has already been made in favour of the petitioner amounting to
Rs.2,26,637.00, but the petitioner is not accepting the same and the
petitioner is harping upon the compensation for the land which
according to the petitioner belongs to the petitioner and according to the
State , belongs to the State.
7. The learned counsel has referred to the provisions of Section
3H (4) of National Highway Act, 1956 to submit that in case of any
dispute in connection with title of the property, the matter has to be
referred to the decision through Principal civil court of original
jurisdiction within whose limit the land is situated. He has submitted
that this point has been decided by this court in W.P.(C) No.1832 of
2017 (Shambhu Prasad Mahto and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and
Ors.) disposed of on 12.05.2023.
8. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the State is
claiming the property and the petitioner is disputing the title of the
state . He has also submitted that the petitioner may approach the
authority in terms of Section 3H so that appropriate order can be passed
and the dispute of title between the petitioner and the state can be
referred to civil court for adjudication .
9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this court finds that
the petitioner claims to be the owner of the property involved in this
case through registered sale deed and as per the petitioner, the
predecessor in interest of the petitioner were also having valid title
based on documents. However, from perusal of the records of this case,
it appears that the property involved in this case was claimed to be
government land pursuant to which the property was handed over to
National Highway Authority free of cost. Such documents are annexed
with the records of the connected contempt matter.
10. It further appears that as per the policy, there are certain
circumstances where there is provision for payment of compensation
for private structure like house or other building on government land.
The relevant provision is quoted as under:
"(c) Payment of compensation for private structures like
houses & other buildings on government land:
(i) There are instances where people are granted patta /
ownership rights on the land under any law of the State including
ab.. assigned land. In such cases compensation would be paid for
the structures only on the recommendation of the CALA/State
Government. The procedure for valuation of such structures will
be followed as mentioned in above paras.
(ii) There may be cases where people have been living on the
government land for a long period and State Government
determine such persons as bonafide & genuine users of the said
lad. Other civil facilities like water supply, roads, electricity etc.
are also provided to them by the government but no ownership
document is available with them, in such cases ex-gratia may be
paid for the structures based on the valuation done by following
the procedures mentioned in the above paras; provided the
proposal is received through CALA/Government.
11. It appears that pursuant to aforesaid policy, the amount of
compensation for the structure has been found to be Rs.2,26,637/-, but
as per the respondents this amount has not been taken by the petitioner.
The petitioner is claiming compensation of land.
12. This Court finds that as per the provisions of Section 3H of
National Highway Act, 1956, the amount of determined compensation
is to be deposited by the Central Government and if there is any dispute
regarding apportionment of the amount, the matter is to be referred to
the principal court of original jurisdiction in terms of section 3H (4). In
the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.1832 of 2017 (supra),
this Court has held that even title dispute in connection with the
acquired property is to be referred to the civil court for adjudication in
terms of Section 3H of National Highway Act, 1956.
13. It appears that there is a dispute of title between the petitioner
and the State. In such circumstances, appropriate decision is to be taken
by the authority in terms of Section 3H (4) and the authority is also
required to consider the documents which may be filed by the
petitioner.
14. At this, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that
the competent authority would be respondent no.4.
15. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances regarding
dispute of title over the acquired land , the relief as prayed for by the
petitioner cannot be granted under writ jurisdiction.
16. However, liberty is reserved with the petitioner to approach
respondent no.4 within a period of 4 weeks from today along with the
writ records as well as a copy of this order and supporting documents, if
any, and the respondent no.4 is directed to take appropriate steps in
accordance with law in terms of the Section 3H (4) of National
Highway Act, 1956 read with order passed by this Court in W.P.(C)
No.1832 of 2017 disposed of on 12.05.2023. The petitioner shall also
produce a copy of the order passed in W.P.(C) No.1832 of 2017
disposed of on 12.05.2023 .
17. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
18. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav/
