Jharkhand High Court
Rajeshwar Prasad Munsi S/O Late ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 October, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 5126 of 2017
Rajeshwar Prasad Munsi S/o Late Rameshwar Munshi, Resident of
Daludih, P.O. Daludih, P.S. - Rajganj, District - Dhanbad
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. District Land Acquisition Officer cum - Competent Authority
through Project Director, NHAI, PIU, NHAI Complex, National
Highway Authority of India, Kandra Bhitia, P.O. & P.S. -
Govindpur, District - Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Parth Jalan, Advocate
: Mr. Bajrang Kumar, Advocate
For the Resp. No.2 : Mrs. Sweety Topno, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sharabhil Ahmed, AC to SC Mines I
---
10/21.10.2024 Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
District Land Acquisition Officer - cum - Competent Authority under
National Highway Act had issued letter no.659 dated 24.05.2016
(Annexure - 4) wherein, the petitioner was asked to accept
compensation of an amount of Rs.45,45,690/- by 30.05.2016. It was
also mentioned therein that in case the petitioner does not accept the
payment, interest will not be payable and the amount will be deposited
in the treasury and the petitioner will be dispossessed from his land.
The writ petition was filed on 29.08.2017 seeking a direction upon the
respondents to release the amount. It was also mentioned in the writ
petition that for the adjoining property, the compensation was already
paid to the brothers of the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel submits that a supplementary counter
affidavit dated 09.09.2024 has been filed by the District Land
Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad annexing therewith a letter no.1279
dated 06.09.2024 stating that the award ought to have been for an
amount of Rs.28,00,774/- as per the valuation made by the Executive
Engineer Building Division, Dhanbad but the award cannot be
reduced and consequently there was a direction to make payment of
Rs.45,45,690/- to the petitioner. He submits that the said amount has
been received by the petitioner on 21.09.2024.
4. The learned counsel submits that the surviving grievance of the
petitioner is that the petitioner would be entitled for statutory interest
in terms of Section 80 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2013). The learned
counsel submits that it is not in dispute that even in the matter of
acquisition of land under National Highway Act, 1956, compensation
is to be quantified and paid in terms of the Act of 2013.
5. The learned counsel has further submitted that appropriate
direction be issued for the purposes of payment of interest. He has also
submitted that as per the petitioner, the interest amount comes to
Rs.56,67,790/- and communication to this effect has been made to the
respondent-District Land Acquisition Officer vide letter dated
13.09.2024, which has been brought on record by way of
supplementary affidavit dated 20.09.2024 filed on behalf of the
petitioner.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied upon
the order dated 16.01.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5438 of 2010
(Lanka Alda and Anr. Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.) and
submitted that in the said case, the order refusing to pay interest under
Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to
as the LA Act) has been set aside. He submits that a direction was also
issued for calculation of interest and its payment in terms of section 34
of the LA Act.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
authority under National Highways Act has submitted that if the
petitioner has any grievance regarding payment of the compensation,
he has a remedy under the provisions of Section 3G (5) of National
Highways Act, 1956 and no mandamus be issued by this Court. She
has also submitted that the applicability of the Act of 2013 will also be
taken care of by the learned Arbitrator. The learned counsel has also
submitted that without prejudice to the aforesaid submission, as per
Section 80 of the Act of 2013, payment of interest is dependent upon
certain conditions mentioned in Section 80 of the Act of 2013, which
would also require adjudication.
8. The learned counsel for the State has also supported the case of
the respondent - authority appearing under the National Highway Act.
9. Arguments concluded.
10. Post this case for judgment on 28.10.2024.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav/-
