Jharkhand High Court
Parmeshwar Mahatha vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 22 October, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 5000 of 2016
1. Parmeshwar Mahatha
2. Maheshwar Mahatha
3. Ramdev Mahatha @ Ramdev Kumar Mahatha. All sons of Late
Shyampad Mahatha, residents of village-Bandhgora, Post Office
Satanpur, P.S. Pindrajora, District-Bokaro.
4. Manju Rai, daughter of Gayisree Rai, resident of J.B.25, City
Centre, Sector-IV, P.O. and P.S. Sector-IV, Bokaro Steel City,
District-Bokaro. ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through Divisional Forest Officer,
Divisional Forest Office, P.O +P.S.-Bokaro.
2. Land Acquisition Officer, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro
Steel City, District-Bokaro.
3. Project Director, National Highway Authority of India, Govindpur,
P.O. and P.S. Govindpur, District-Dhandbad (Jharkhand).
4. Badal Mahatha, aged about 50 years.
5. Vijay Kumar Mahatha, aged about 46 years.
6. Chini Bas Mahatha, aged about 43 years.
7. Ashok Kumar Mahatha, aged about 34 years.
Sl. Nos.4 to 7, sons of Late Rameshwar Mahatha and resident of
Village Bandhgoda, Tola - Kedadih, P.O. Satanpur, P.S. Pindrajora,
District Bokaro, Jharkhand
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate
: Ms. Prerna Jhunjhunwala, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, A.C to Sr. S.C.I
For the Resp. No.3 : Ms. Sweety Topno, Advocate
: Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, Advocate
For the Interveners : Mr. S. Srivastava, Advocate
: Mr. Sunil Singh, Advocate
---
26/22.10.2024
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This case has been filed for the following reliefs:-
"For directing the Respondent No. 2 to consider the
representation dated 4.9.2015 served by the petitioners
regarding objection in connection with Notification dated
7th April, 2015 for the acquisition of land pertaining to plot
No. 985 under Khata No. 06 within Mouza Bandgora No.
35, P.S. Pindrajora, District-Bokaro (Notification
published u/s 3(ii) under the National Highway, 1956 for
the acquisition of land in Dainik Jagran, Hindi daily
newspaper dated 13th April, 2015;
And
Any other appropriate writ/writs be issued, order/orders be
passed, direction/directions be made as Your Lordships
may deem fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to
the petitioner."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners has raised objection in connection with notification dated
07th April 2015 with respect to the property mentioned in the prayer
portion of the writ petition but the representation has not yet been
disposed of.
4. The learned counsel has submitted that as per the writ records,
the acquired land does not contain the land of the petitioners but the
petitioners has been dispossessed from the land.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.
3 has submitted that the land in question was handed over to the
respondent No. 3 by the State Government by declaring the property
to be the property of the State and the formalities were completed. She
has submitted that road has already been constructed on the said
property. The learned counsel has also submitted that the dispute in
connection with right, title, interest, possession, compensation etc.
with regard to the same has to be adjudicated in terms of section 3H
(4) of National Highway Act, 1956. She has relied upon the orders
passed by this Court in W.P.C No. 5082 of 2017 and W.P.C No. 1382
of 2017.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has
submitted that the petitioners has made a simple prayer for disposal of
representation. The grievance of the petitioners can be looked into and
if the land of the petitioners has not been acquired, the petitioners may
not have any grievance. He has submitted that the physical location of
the land being claimed by the petitioners is also required to be verified
with respect to the description of property which has been mentioned
in the acquisition of land.
7. In the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(C). No. 1832 of
2017 with other analogous cases (Shambhu Prasad and Ors. Vs. The
State of Jharkhand and Ors.), a prayer was made before this Court
directing the respondents to release the payment in connection with
land acquired for construction of national highway and also a direction
that if there is any dispute with regard to compensation amount that
should be referred under Section 3 - H (4) of the National Highways
Act, 1956. In the said case, the Forest Department was claiming title
over the property and Divisional Forest Officer of the concerned
district was a party in the writ petition. Reliance was placed to the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of
Girishchandra Mahendra Prasad Pathak Vs. Collector, Vadodara in
R/Special Civil Application No.9093 of 2023 where Section 3 H (4)
of the National Highways Act, 1956 was subject matter of
consideration. In Girishchandra Mahendra Prasad Pathak (supra) it
was held that there is no scope for giving restrictive meaning of the
provisions of Section 3 - H (4) of the aforesaid Act of 1956. It has
also been held that the dispute regarding ownership of the property is
also required to be referred to civil court for adjudication. The
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court also noted that similar view was taken by
Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Nanak Chand and
ultimately held as follows:
"Thus, sub-section (4) of Section 3 H of the NH Act is in harmonious
construction with sub-Section (3) of Section 3 H of the NH Act, and
therefore, the dispute with regard to the title and ownership shall need
to be referred to the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction,
within the limits of whose local jurisdiction the land in question is
situated, which would decide the entitlement of compensation of several
persons and the dispute with regard to the title and ownership. "
8. In W.P.(C). No. 1832 of 2017 with other analogous cases
(supra), the learned counsel for the respondent - NHAI had also
referred to a judgment passed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the
case reported in 2017 (6) Mh.L.J 612 (Arun Vs. State of Maharastra)
and a reference has been made to paragraph 16 of the said judgment
quoted in W.P.(C). No. 1832 of 2017 (supra) and is also quoted as
under:
"16. It is a settled principle of interpretation of statute that the
provisions of any statute are to be so interpreted as to give effect to
each of them to the extent possible without giving rise to any
conflict or overlapping. This principle of harmonious construction
needs to be applied in the matter before hand vis-a-vis sub-section
(3) of section 3- H, while interpreting sub-section (3). Such
application would lead us to interpret these provisions in
harmonious manner putting neither of them otiose. A careful
reading of these provisions would reveal that when several persons
are entitled to claim compensation, the competent authority has
power and jurisdiction to record an opinion and determine the
persons who are entitled to receive share/s and only enables him to
apportion the amount of compensation amongst them according to
the share they are entitled to. As against this, sub-section (4)
contemplates a situation where the dispute is raised as to the
entitlement of the compensation by several persons and the
jurisdiction to decide such dispute is conferred upon the Principal
Civil Court of original jurisdiction. In other words, whenever there
is dispute raised by any person as to the right to receive either the
whole or portion of the compensation, the competent authority is
obliged to refer the matter to the Principal Civil Court of original
jurisdiction."
9. After considering the aforesaid judgments, this Court in
W.P.(C). No. 1832 of 2017 (supra) held that the title suit amongst the
parties claiming compensation arising out of acquisition of land under
the aforesaid Act of 1956, is required to be referred to the Court in
terms of Section 3 H (4) of National Highways Act, 1956. Since the
Forest Department was claiming title, the same also required
adjudication by the competent court in terms of Section 3 H (4) of the
Act of 1956. Accordingly, the District Land Acquisition Officer - cum
- Competent Authority was directed to look into the matter and pass
appropriate order in connection with referring the dispute to the Court
for adjudication in terms of Section 3 - H (4) of the aforesaid Act of
1956, so that the dispute regarding claim of compensation and related
title dispute in connection with the acquired property is ultimately
resolved.
10. In the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(C). No. 5082 of
2017 (Shahana Parween Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.)
decided on 19.07.2023 where the quantum of compensation was under
dispute and this Court ultimately held in paragraph nos.12 as follows:
"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."
11. This Court finds that in the present case also there are rival
claims with regard to right, title, interest and possession of the
property.
12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case and the
nature of reliefs as prayed for by the petitioners in this writ petition,
this Court hereby directs the respondent No. 2 to consider the
representation dated 04.09.2015 filed by the petitioners and pass a
reasoned order after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioners
as well as to the respondent No. 1 and 3 and also the intervener
petitioners ( respondent no. 4 to 7) whose intervention was allowed
vide order dated 2nd September, 2024 being I.A. No. 8416 of 2022.
13. At this, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted
that it was clarified in order dated 02nd September, 2024 that addition
of party thorough the interlocutory application will not create any
right in favour of the interveners.
14. All the aspects of the matter will be duly considered by the
respondent No. 2 while considering the representation.
15. The parties to appear before the respondent No. 2 on 25th
November, 2024 at 11:00 AM along with a copy of this order and a
copy of writ records. The reasoned order be passed within a period of
one month from 25th November, 2024 and be communicated to the
concerned parties through 'speed post'.
16. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations
and directions.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Rakesh/-
