Jharkhand High Court
Mohan Manjhi vs State Of Jharkhand on 6 May, 2024
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
W.P. (C) No.5297 of 2021
----
Mohan Manjhi .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand.
2. Revenue Secretary, Project Building H.E.C., Hatia, Dhurwa, Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, Jharkhand.
4. Land Acquisition Officer, Ramgarh, Jharkhand.
5. Circle Officer, Ramgarh, Jharkhand.
6. General Manager, West Bokaro Colliery, Ghato (TISCO) now TATA
Steel Ltd., Ghato Tand, Hazaribag, Jharkhand.
.... .... Respondents
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jorong Jedan Sanga, Adv.
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Rahool Saboo, G.P.-II
Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, A.C. to G.P.-II
For the Res. No.6 : Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Adv.
----
th
09/Dated: 06 May, 2024
1. The present writ petition has been filed
"i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/direction(s) upon the
respondents to de-notify and release the land situated at Village Bangi,
Thana No. 159, Thana- Mandu, District- Hazaribag now Ramgarh being
Khata No. 11, Plot, no. 530, 532, 490, 523, 524, 525, 537, 518, 419, 520,
523, 536, 525, 533, 575, 612, 614, 484, 514, 515, 519, 521, 526, 531,
533, 539, 546, 547, 579, 611 and 613 total measuring an area 10.68 acres
which originally belonged to and recorded in the name of Phagu Manjhi
in the Revisional Survey Record of Right which has been acquired by the
State Government for Respondent No. 6 in land acquisition case NO.
51/80-81, 19/88-89 the land acquired being surplus land for which
possession has also not been taken nor the compensation has been paid to
the petitioners nor to their forefathers.
ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/direction(s) upon the
respondents to release and relinquish the land of the petitioner which has
been acquired by the Respondent No. 6 because the state Government
had acquired the land in favour of Respondent No. 6 in surplus for which
physical possession of the land of the petitioner being at Village Bangi,
Thana No. 159, Thana- Mandu, District- Hazaribag now Ramgarh, being
revisional survey Khata No. 11, Plot no. 530, 532, 490, 523, 524, 525,
537, 518, 419, 520, 523, 536, 525, 533, 575, 612, 614, 484, 514, 515,
519, 521, 526, 531, 533, 539, 546, 547, 579, 611 and 613 total measuring
an area 10.68 acres originally belonged to and recorded in the name of
Phagu Manjhi in the Revisional Survey Record of Right has not been
taken nor the compensation to the petitioner nor to their forefathers has
been paid thereby the entire land acquisition proceeding under land
acquisition case is deemed to have been lapsed.
iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/direction(s) for
declaring and a declaration that the land of the petitioner which has been
acquired under land acquisition act 1894 in land acquisition case
no.51/80-81, 19/88-89 proceedings shall be deemed to have been lapsed.
After coming in force of "The Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
2013 because neither the compensation of the land which has been
acquired by respondents have been paid to the petitioners nor the
possession of the land of the petitioners has been taken. Therefore, the
said proceeding shall be deemed to have been lapsed and the respondents
if they choose So then the respondents shall initiate the proceeding of
such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provision of new act.
iv) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/direction(s) as Your
Lordship may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the
case."
2. Thus, the basic prayer is that the acquisition stands lapsed in view of
section 24 (2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
3. Brief Facts:-
(i) 29.09.1986 - Notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 has been issued.
(ii) 28.04.1988 - Declaration under Section 6 of the L.A. Act, 1984
by the State Government. Ultimately, the Award has been
prepared under Section 11 of the L.A. Act in Land Acquisition
Case No.51 of 80-81/19 of 88-89 and the awarded amount has
also been deposited in the State Treasury.
(iii) 30.09.1992 - Possession of the Land was taken and handed
over to the M/s West Bokaro Ltd. (now M/s Tata Steel Ltd.)
and the Land Possession Certificate was also issued by the
District Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribagh.
4. There is reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act and upon that
Land Reference Case No.522 of 1992 has been instituted before the Sub-
Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, Land Acquisition at Hazaribagh and the same
has been decided vide judgment dated 19.09.2006 and accordingly the
Award has been prepared on 24.11.2006.
Page | 2 W.P. (C) No.5297 of 2021
5. Further, First Appeal has also been filed being F.A. No.950 of 2006
which has been dismissed for default on 16.01.2019 and C.M.P. No.139 of
2019 has been filed which is still pending.
6. Now, the only issue involved in the present writ petition is, "whether
in such a scenario the acquisition will lapse or not?"
7. Paragraph Nos.366.5 and 366.9 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 in the case of Indore Development
Authority Vs. Manoharlal & Others, have been brought to my notice which
is quoted hereinbelow:-
"366.5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided
under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that
acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non-
deposit of compensation in court. The obligation to pay is complete by
tendering the amount under Section 31(1). The landowners who had
refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher
compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed
under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to new cause of
action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land
acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of
enforcement of the 2013 Act i.e. 1-1-2014. It does not revive stale and
time-barred claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow
landowners to question the legality of mode of taking possession to
reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury
instead of court to invalidate acquisition."
8. Thus, the issue involved in the present writ petition stands settled by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in above mentioned case.
9. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that the prayer made by the
writ petitioner cannot be entertained, accordingly, it is, hereby, dismissed.
10. However, the parties are at liberty to work out his remedy in
accordance with law.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Amar/-
Uploaded
Page | 3 W.P. (C) No.5297 of 2021
