Anokha Mishra vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 8730 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Anokha Mishra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 September, 2024

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                       L.P.A. No. 408 of 2024
                                    ----------

   Anokha Mishra, aged about 65 years, son of Late Moji Mishra,
   resident of Village Dumri, P.O. and P.S. Dumri, District Giridih.

                                        ... ... Appellant/Petitioner
                                Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, P.O. and P.S. Giridih, District
   Giridih.

3. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Giridih, P.O. and P.S. Giridih,
   District Giridih.

4. The Project Officer, Implementation Unit, National Highways
   Authority of India, NHAI Complex, Kandra, P.O. Bhitia, P.S.
   Govindpur, District Dhanbad.
                                      ... ... Respondents/Respondents

                                      -------
  CORAM:           HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

                                     -------
  For the Appellant             : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate
                                : Mr. Anjani Nandan, Advocate
                                : Mr. Aditya Banerjee, Advocate
                                : Mr. Suman Kumar Ghosh, Advocate
  For the State                 : Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, AC to AAG-II
  For the NHAI                  : Mrs. Sweety Topno, Advocate
                                : Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, Advocate

                            ----------------------------

ORAL ORDER

04/Dated: 03rd September, 2024 IA. No.7000 of 2024:

1. This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 61 days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal.

2. No counter to the delay condonation application has been filed.

3. Heard the parties

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the statements made in this application, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented from sufficient cause in preferring this appeal within time.

5. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed and the delay of 61 days in preferring this appeal is hereby condoned.

L.P.A. No. 408 of 2024:

Prayer:

1. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the part of the order dated 02.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 5634 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the writ petitioner was directed to approach the respondent authorities by filing fresh representation and respondent State has been directed to consider the same by passing a speaking and reasoned order.

2. It needs to refer herein the part of the order as passed by the learned Single Judge as under Paragraphs 15 and 16 which have been challenged reads as under:

"15. Petitioner may approach the respondent-

authorities by filing fresh representation annexing all the relevant documents on which he is relying, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and after receiving the same alongwith the copy of this order, the respondent- State shall consider the same in accordance with law, taking into consideration the prevalent rules, guidelines and legal propositions and also in view of

the fact that similarly situated persons have already been extended full compensation, pass a speaking and reasoned order, within a further period of eight weeks, which shall also be communicated to the petitioner.

16. It goes without saying that if the petitioner is found entitled for full amount of compensation, the respondents shall pay the balance amount of Rs. 42.00 lakhs and odd since the petitioner has already received an amount of Rs. 10.00 lakhs and odd, within a further period of four weeks."

Factual Matrix:

3. The brief facts as per the pleadings is required to be enumerated as hereinunder:

The appellant had purchased 2.50 decimals of land being portion of Survey Plot No. 147 under Khata No. 22, situated in village Ghujadih, Thana Dumri, Thana No.101, District Giridih, in the name of his wife, Jayanti Devi for valuable consideration under Registered Sale Deed No. 11131, dated 20.10.1987 of the office of the District Sub- Registrar, Giridih.

Thereafter, the appellant purchased 2.17 decimals of land being portion of Survey Plot No. 147, under Khata No. 22, situated in village Ghujadih, Thana Dumri, Thana No. 101, District Giridih, in the name of his wife Jayanti Devi for valuable consideration under Registered Sale Deed No. 2022, dated 16.02.1993 of the office of the District Sub- Registrar, Giridih.

Further, the appellant purchased 2.17 decimals of land being portion of Survey Plot No. 147, under Khata No. 22, situated in village Ghujadih, Thana Dumri, Thana No. 101, District Giridih, in

his own name, for valuable consideration under Registered Sale Deed No. 2023, dated 16.02.1993 of the office of the District Sub- Registrar, Giridih.

After purchase of the aforesaid plots of land, the names of the appellant and his wife were also duly mutated in the revenue records in the office of the Circle Officer, Dumri, and they also regularly paid rent Government in respect of the aforesaid plots of land against proper rent receipts.

All the aforesaid three plots of land were adjacent ones and, therefore, amalgamated into one plot of land measuring an area of 6.84 decimals upon which the appellant got a two storied commercial cum residential building complex constructed in the year 2012-13. The appellant also started living in the said building along with his family soon after the construction was over in the year 2013.

In the meantime on 08.03.2014, the wife of the appellant, Jayanti Devi, died, leaving behind the appellant and two sons, Shivnandan Kumar Mishra and Sachin Kumar, as her legal heirs and successors.

The Notification No. S.O. 602 (E) dated 11.03.2013 issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 (A) of the National Highways Act, 1956 was published in the Gazette of India by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways of the Government of India, declaring its intention of acquiring the land specified in the schedule annexed thereto for building (widening / six laning, etc.), maintenance, management and operation National Highway No.2 on the stretch of land from K.M. 320 to Κ.Μ. 368.260 (Aurangabad to Barwa Adda Section) in Giridih in the State of Jharkhand. And the substance of the said notification was also published in Prabhat Khabar and Hindustan local newspapers on 29.06.2013 under sub-section (3) of Section 3 (A) of the National Highways Act, 1956.

Thereafter, the competent authority received objections from the interested persons and disallowed the same under Section 3 (C) of the National Highways Act, 1956. Thereafter the competent authority submitted its report to the Central Government in pursuance of Sub- section (1) of Section 3 (D) of the National Highways Act, 1956. Thereafter, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 3 (D) of National Highways Act, 1956, the Central Government by the Notification No. 621 dated 10.03.2014 published in the Gazette of India by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, declared that the land specified in the schedule thereto shall vest absolutely in the Central Government and should be acquired for the purpose of building (widening / six- laning, etc.), maintenance, management and operation of National Highway No.2 on the stretch of land from K.M. 320 to K.M. 308.260 (Aurangabad to Barwa Adda Section) in Giridih in the State of Jharkhand.

The 0.01 acre (1 decimal) land of the appellant was also proposed to be acquired thereunder which was the part of the above mentioned 6.84 decimals land of the appellant.

In the year 2016, the respondent no.3 issued individual awards detailing the total amount of compensation payable to the interested persons including the appellant, according to which the total compensation amount payable to the appellant for acquisition of 0.01 acre (1 decimal) of his land with building is Rs. 52,60,542.00/- (Rupees Fifty Two Lakhs Sixty Thousand Five Hundred Forty Two). However, in September 2016, the appellant was offered only Rs. 10,07,227.00/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Seven Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Seven) as the compensation for acquisition of 0.01 acre (1 decimal) of his land with building for the reasons best known to the respondent authorities, which the appellant accepted and received under protest in November, 2016.

The Register-II, Jamabandi is recorded in the name of Bandhu Ram and others son of Kewal Ram since 1987-88 and the rent receipt is issued by the Government authority till the year 2012-

13.

The land in question was in possession of the descendant of intermediary, from whom Jayanti Devi wife of the appellant Anokha Mishra and the appellant purchased the land through Sale Deed Nos. 11131/21.10.1987, 2023/16.02.1993 and 2022/16.02.1993.

No record of compensation case was available in A.A. Office (office of Circle Officer, Giridih).

The appellant has repeatedly been representing to the respondent authorities for payment of the balance compensation amount to him, but, the respondent authorities are paying no heed to his requests. And recently on 24.09.2018, the employees of the National Highways Authority of India had come to demolish the building of the appellant and dispossess him from 0.01 acre (1 decimal) of his land proposed to be acquired, however, the appellant requested them not to do so till his entire payment is cleared, then they went back. Thereafter on 27.09.2018, the appellant submitted representation to the respondent no. 3 also serving a copy of the same upon the respondent no.4, apprising him of the above facts and also requesting him for the payment of the compensation amount to him in accordance with the award prepared in this case. However, the said respondent authorities are sitting tight over the matter and are not doing anything for redressal of the grievances of the appellant.

The respondents are duty bound to forthwith pay Rs. 42,53,315.00/- (Rupees Forty Two Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand Three Hundred and Fifteen) along with statutory interest to the appellant as the balance amount against the total compensation

amount of Rs. 52,60,542.00/- (Rupees Fifty Two Lakhs Sixty Thousand Five Hindered Forty Two) awarded in favour of the appellant for acquisition of his land measuring an area of 0.01 acre (1 decimal), bearing Survey Plot No. 147, under Khata No. 22, situated in village Ghujadih, Thana Dumri, Thana No. 101, District Giridih, for the purpose of six laning of National Highway No.2 from Aurangabad to Barwa Adda (Κ.Μ. 180.00 to K.M. 400.132).

The appellant then filed W.P. (C) No. 5182 of 2018 before this Hon'ble Court, praying for payment of balance amount of compensation of Rs. 42,53,315/- along with statutory interest to the appellant. The said writ petition disposed of vide order dated 17.12.2018 directing the District Land Acquisition Officer, Giridih, to take an informed decision for payment of balance amount of compensation to the appellant.

On 22.08.2019, the District Land Acquisition Officer, passed an order that the land of Khata No. 22, Mouza Ghujadih, Plot No. 147 is Bakashta land and as per the order sheet itself report was called for from Circle Officer, Dungri, which reported as per the entries in Khatian, it was "Bakashta" and mentioned the name of rent receiver as Lekha Ram. Thereafter, Memo no. 7 dated 02.08.2019 was issued to the appellant for return of the compensation amount.

4. It is evident from the factual aspect that the issue of the compensation, in lieu of acquisition of the land, has been denied by passing the impugned order dated 22.08.2019.

5. The learned Single Judge, on consideration of rival submissions made on behalf of the parties although has quashed and set aside the order dated 22.08.2019 by holding the writ petitioner entitled for balance of the amount to the tune of Rs. 42 lakhs and odd. But even though the writ petitioner has been held to be entitled for the rest amount of the compensation, the learned Single Judge has given

liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent authorities annexing all the relevant documents for its consideration by the authority concerned and if the petitioner is found entitled for full amount of compensation, the respondent shall pay the balance amount of Rs. 42 lakhs and odd since the petitioner has already received an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs and odd.

6. The aforesaid part of the order/judgment as under Paragraph 15 and 16 whereby and whereunder such liberty was granted and holding the writ petitioner entitled for amount of compensation has sought to be quashed.

Submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appelant:

7. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that once the writ petitioner has been held entitled for compensation as would evident from finding as recorded by the learned Single Judge as under Paragraph 13 then there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to grant liberty to the writ petitioner to approach the respondent authority for consideration regarding the entitlement of petitioner for the amount of compensation.

8. Further submissions has been made that when the entitlement has been decided in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the direction so passed by relegating the petitioner to approach the respondent authorities for declaring his title is nothing but a redundant problem and if such order is remained to be there, it will be an unnecessary harassment for the writ petitioner. Therefore, the aforesaid part of the order is not justified and hence the same is fit to be quashed and set aside.

Submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents:

9. The learned counsel appearing for the State and the learned counsel appearing for the National Highway Authority of India have jointly submitted that when the learned Single Judge has passed an order holding the appellant-writ petitioner entitled for amount of compensation, the petitioner ought not to have been relegated before the authority by filing the fresh representation for deciding the entitlement afresh.

10. The said submission may not be construed to be concession on the part of the learned counsel rather they have made submission only on the basis of the findings so recorded by the learned Single Judge.

Analysis:

11. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order.

12. The question of entitlement for amount of the rest of the compensation was the subject matter before the learned Single Judge on account of acquisition of land for which the acquisition proceedings was initiated under the Act, 2013.

13. A sum of Rs. 10 lakhs and odd has been disbursed in favour of the writ petitioner. The learned Single Judge has accepted the stand taken by the petitioner regarding the entitlement and therefore, the petitioner had remain entitled for compensation as would appear from the finding so recorded in the Paragraph 13 of the impugned order. For ready reference, the same has been referred hereinbelow which reads as under:

"13. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines and legal propositions, this Court is of the view that petitioner is entitled for compensation which has already been granted to him and he has received only part payment i.e. Rs. 10.00

lakhs and odd and thus, entitled for balance amount of Rs. 42.00 lakhs and odd."

14. The learned Single Judge after holding the writ petitioner entitled for compensation has also quashed the order dated 22.08.2019 and letter dated 28.02.2019 as would appear from Paragraph 14 of the order/judgment impugned.

But the learned Single Judge, even holding the writ petitioner entitled for amount of compensation, has given liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent authorities by filing afresh representation annexing all the relevant documents on which he is relying within a period of 2 weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order.

The authority on receipt of such representation based upon the prevalent rules, guidelines and legal propositions and also in view of the fact that similarly situated persons have already been extended full compensation, pass a speaking and reasoned order, within a further period of eight weeks, which shall also be communicated to the petitioner which has further been observed if the petitioner is found entitled for full amount of compensation, the respondent shall pay the balance amount of Rs. 42 lakhs and odd since the petitioner has already received the amount of Rs. 10 lakhs and odd within a period of 4 weeks. For ready reference, Paragraph 15 and 16 needs to be referred herein which reads as under:

"15. Petitioner may approach the respondent- authorities by filing fresh representation annexing all the relevant documents on which he is relying, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and after receiving the same alongwith the copy of this order, the respondent- State shall consider the same in accordance with law, taking into consideration the prevalent rules,

guidelines and legal propositions and also in view of the fact that similarly situated persons have already been extended full compensation, pass a speaking and reasoned order, within a further period of eight weeks, which shall also be communicated to the petitioner.

16. It goes without saying that if the petitioner is found entitled for full amount of compensation, the respondents shall pay the balance amount of Rs. 42.00 lakhs and odd since the petitioner has already received an amount of Rs. 10.00 lakhs and odd, within a further period of four weeks."

15. This Court needs to refer herein once again the Paragraph 16 wherein the order has been passed that if the petitioner is found to be entitled by the State authority on the basis of representation if made as per the observation made at Paragraph 15 of the impugned order then the balance amount shall be paid.

The question is that when the learned Single Judge has came to the conclusive finding holding the writ petitioner entitled for compensation then where is the question again to decide the entitlement by relegating the petitioner to file representation for the aforesaid purpose.

16. The High Court once has decided by quashing and setting aside the decision so taken by the authority then the respondent authority is to abide by such direction or, if aggrieved, prefer an appeal before the appropriate forum. But in no stretch of imagination once the High Court has decided the issue of entitlement then again the issue of entitlement need not to be considered by the authority of the State.

17. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the observation/directions made at Paragraphs 15 and 16 are quashed and set aside.

The respondents are directed to disburse the rest of the amount as per the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge holding the writ petitioner entitled for compensation as under Paragraph 13 of the impugned order.

18. Such amount has to be disbursed within a period of 4 weeks on receipt of the copy of this order.

19. Accordingly, the instant appeal being L.P.A. No. 408 of 2024 stands disposed of.

20. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stands disposed of.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.)

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

Samarth/ A.F.R.