Dismissed

Surendar Mahto v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC3 Jul 2019WPC/372/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ against the State's inaction in not dealing with his Section 18 petition to enhance land compensation. The court held that since the title holder (father) had accepted the award, the petitioner (son) cannot invoke Section 18. Non-dealing with an unmaintainable petition does not constitute actionable inaction warranting a writ as per para 11-13.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; pen dismissed on the ground that the petition under Section 18 is not maintainable due to prior acceptance of the award by the title holder.

Surendar Mahto Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors. — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No.372 of 2016

¶3

--------Surendar Mahto ……… Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi

¶7

District Land Acquisition Officer, Kachahari Road, Ranchi

¶8

Deputy Chief Engineer, Eastern Railway at Dhanbad

¶9

………. Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD --------For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv. For the Resp.-State : Mr. Ankit Kumar, A.C. to GP.-IV ---

¶12

08/03.07.2019 The writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has sought for a direction upon the respondent against their in-action, is not considering the petition filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

¶13

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the land is recorded in the name of his father in the record of rights pertaining to khata no.11, plot nos.669, 679, 576, 577 and 463 total area 2.16 acres of Mouza Humbai, Thana Sadar, District-Ranchi, arising out of L.A. Case No.2/2002-03.

¶14

3. The father of the petitioner has accepted the award and also the amount of compensation, thereafter the son who is the petitioner herein has made an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, for making reference since he is not satisfied with the quantum of amount of compensation.

¶15

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the statute provides to adjudicate with respect to quantum of apportionment of the amount of compensation as per the provision under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is incumbent upon the authority to take decision upon such petition either by referring it before the concerned Court or by rejecting it but having not done so, there is in-action on his part, therefore, the instant writ petition.

¶16

5. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State-Respondent.

¶17

6. Mr. Ankit Kumar, learned A.C. to G.P.-IV appearing for the Respondent-State by placing the said counter affidavit, has submitted that there is no question of applicability of Section 18 of the Act, 1894, in view of the fact that the said provision is to be made applicable when the amount of compensation would not be accepted by the land looser but it is the admitted case of the petitioner that his father has accepted the amount of compensation, as such, the petition is not maintainable to be referred before the competent authority in exercise of power conferred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

¶18

7. In response, Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the father of the petitioner has accepted the amount of compensation with objection, therefore, no prejudice would be caused.

¶19

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions, the factual aspect which is not in dispute in this case is that the land acquisition proceeding was initiated being L.A. Case No.2/2002-03.

¶20

In course of proceeding, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been issued. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner being a title holder has put his appearance in the said land acquisition proceeding. The proceeding has been culminated by passing an award which has been accepted by the father of the petitioner and also accepted the quantum of compensation as has been awarded in the award passed in L.A. Case No.02/2002-03.

¶21

The petitioner who is the son of the father, the title holder thereafter has filed a petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for enhancement of the amount of compensation, the same having not been dealt with by the competent authority, this writ petition has been filed.

¶22

9. It is not in dispute that the writ of command in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to be issued by the High Court if there is in-action on the part of the authority i.e., if the authority who has been assigned with a statutory duty has failed in discharging their duty, it would be said in-action on

¶23

their part and in that eventuality, the writ Court can issue command upon the said authority to exercise the statutory duty by way of statute.

¶24

10. Admittedly a provision has been conferred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provides a provision giving statutory remedy to the land looser in a case where the land loosers are not satisfied with the quantum of compensation but the condition precedent for invoking the said provision is that the amount of compensation is not to be accepted for which reference of provision of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is being referred as hereunder:-

¶25

“ 18. Reference to Court .-(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether, his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.

¶26

(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken:

¶27

Provided that every such application shall be made,-

¶28

(a) If the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector’s award;

¶29

(b) In other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector’s award, whichever period shall first expire.”

¶30

11. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that the quantum of amount of compensation can be objected and for its adjudication regarding quantum, a reference is required to be made for which a petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is to be made, meaning thereby that reference needs to be made showing the objection by not accepting the amount of compensation i.e., the word stipulated under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as because there is reference “any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the mater be referred by the Collector for determination of the Court”, meaning thereby, a person interested can invoke the power under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, if not accepted the award.

¶31

Acceptance of award would only be said to be not accepted if the amount of compensation would not be accepted by the interested party but the moment it has been accepted, it will not be said that award has not been accepted by the interested party.

¶32

Here admittedly, the father of the petitioner had accepted the award by accepting the amount of compensation, therefore, being the title holder there is no grievance of the father of the petitioner but now the petitioner being a son cannot agitate the issue again.

¶33

The question which has been raised by the petitioner that either way the petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ought to have been dealt with either rejecting it by holding it not maintainable or by making reference of the competent Court but I am not agreeing with such submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason that if a petition is not maintainable under the provision of law if it has not been dealt with, it cannot be said that there is in-action on the part of the authority warranting issuance of writ of mandamus.

¶34

12. In view thereof and according to my considered view, this case is not in nature where positive direction needs to be passed.

¶35

13. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and hence it is dismissed.

¶36

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶37

Rohit/-

Surendar Mahto v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendar Mahto v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bisheswar Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand through Secretary Deptt of Mines and Geology

Suman Kumar Bajpai Vs Govind Prasad Dalmia

MD Minhaj Vs State of Jharkhand

Gopal Mishra Vs Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Shaukat Ansari Vs State of Jharkhand

Il and Fs Engineering and Construction Company Limited through Satyanarayana Vishnupanth Vs Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited through Its Managing Director