Remanded

Safiran Bibi Alias Sabiran Bibi And Anr. v. Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Jharkhand HC16 Jul 2019WPC/880/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hearing a writ petition challenging rejection of compensation notice under the Land Acquisition Act, the Court held that despite lack of documentary evidence, the matter must be remitted to the Land Acquisition Officer for fresh consideration to prevent injustice to legal heirs. The Officer is directed to give the petitioners three weeks to submit evidence.

What did the court decide?

Matter remanded to District Land Acquisition Officer to pass fresh order; petitioners directed to submit supporting documents within three weeks.

Safiran Bibi Alias Sabiran Bibi And Anr. Vs Land Reforms… — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(C) No.880 of 2017

¶4

--------

¶5

Safiran Bibi @ Sabiran Bibi W/o Late Mohammad Hussain resident of village- Singho Ramchandrapur, P.O. & P.S.- Madhupur, District Deoghar, Jharkhand.

¶6

Halim Mian @ Abdul Halim Mian S/o Late Sahid Mian resident of village Patwabad, P.O. & P.S.- Madhupur, District- Deoghar, Jharkhand.

¶7

…… Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Jharkhand.

¶10

The Secretary, Department of Land & Revenue, Project Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶11

The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, P.O. & P.S.- Deoghar, DistrictDeoghar.

¶12

The Land Acquisition Officer, Deoghar, P.O. & P.S.- Deoghar, DistrictDeoghar, Jharkhand.

¶13

Bharuddin Mian S/o Late Md. Aanul resident of village Patwabad, P.O. & P.S.- Madhupur, District- Deoghar, Jharkhand.

¶14

…… Respondents

¶15

¶16

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶17

------For the Petitioners : Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-III ----------------------------

¶18

10 / Dated 16^th July, 2019

¶19

1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the order dated 31.10.2016 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Deoghar has been assailed, by which, objection filed by the petitioners wherein questioning the disbursement of the amount of compensation in lieu of acquisition of land, has been rejected on the ground that the petitioners have failed to produce any substantive evidence establishing their nexus with the acquired land.

¶20

2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the legal heirs of one of the co-sharer whose names are appearing in the Ganzers settlement operation but the Government has come out with a proposal for acquisition of land for construction of bus stand, Madhupur, in the District of Deoghar, but no such notice for the acknowledgement of the petitioners has been shared to them and in absence thereof, the acquisition proceeding has been concluded as resulted into non-payment of compensation. The petitioners, after claiming to know about the same, have made an objection

¶21

¶22

before the District Land Acquisition Officer by raising contention that they are also legal heirs, therefore, they are also entitled to get the share of quantum of amount of compensation equal to the value of the portion of the land to their share but the Land Acquisition Officer has rejected the said objection on the ground that no such document establishing any nexus about the title of either of the capacity has been produced.

¶23

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that for establishing the said relationship the nexus with the land acquired, they have made an application for issuance of genealogical table basing upon which a certificate was issued being List Certificate No.92 of 2016 dated 05.11.2016 but before that the objection of the petitioners has been rejected vide order dated 31.10.2016 (impugned) and therefore, the instant writ petition has been filed.

¶24

Since the petitioners have filed an application for getting the genealogical table before the competent authority but there has been some delay, in the meanwhile, an objection has been filed, therefore, the matter may be remitted before the concerned authority who has passed the order for taking into consideration afresh, otherwise the interest of the petitioners will suffer even though petitioners have got perfect title over the land in question as would appear from the genealogical table as contained under Annexure-5.

¶25

4. Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, learned A.C. to Sr. S.C.-III appearing for the State of Jharkhand, on the strength of counter affidavit has submitted that it was the duty of the petitioners to come out with an objection by making an application along with relevant documents in order to substantiate their stand but having not done so the order cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity.

¶26

5. This Court vide order dated 31.07.2018 has issued notice upon the respondent No.5, in terms thereof the appearance has been made on behalf of respondent No.5 whose name is also appearing in the daily cause list.

¶27

6. This Court has proceeded and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, has found the admitted fact that the land has been acquired for the construction of bus stand in the district of Deoghar, the petitioners claims to be legal heirs of one of the co-sharer but

¶28

¶29

having not been noticed, the compensation amount has been disbursed in favour of the legal heirs of the recorded tenant which resulted into making an application before the District Land Acquisition Officer, raising objection for disbursement of amount of compensation equal to the proportion of the share of the land but the said objection has been rejected on the ground that the petitioners have not come out with any substantive document to establish their right.

¶30

The petitioners being aggrieved with the said order by way of instant writ petition, mainly on the ground that the document to establish their nexus with the land in question as legal heirs with the co-sharer in genealogical table but since no notice has been issued to them, therefore, they could not be able to make an application then how the proceeding was initiated, but after completion of the acquisition proceeding and when it came to the knowledge of petitioners, they made an application before the concerned Circle Officer for issuance of genealogical table, upon which, the family list of genealogical table has been issued on 15.11.2016 as would appear from Annexure-5, therefore, the contention of the petitioners is that the relevant document which was not under the domain of the petitioners and therefore, they made an application but the same has not been supplied therefore, the petitioners cannot made to suffer.

¶31

This Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is of the view that the writ court is also a court of equity and merely on technicality, right of the party cannot be said to be given go by rather the right for consideration of the party may not be improved.

¶32

Admittedly on the ground of rejection of the application, no such document has been produced by the petitioners, therefore, this Court also cannot come to the conclusion that the District Land Acquisition Officer has committed an illegality by passing the said order, but simultaneously court of equity is also to see with respect to the substantial justice and, therefore, keeping that fact into consideration, is of the view that the matter needs consideration afresh, therefore, the matter is remitted before the concerned District land Acquisition Officer to pass fresh order with a direction

¶33

¶34

upon the petitioners to bring this order into the notice of the District Land Acquisition Officer along with the application supported by relevant documents in order to substantiate the claim within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶35

7. The District Land Acquisition Officer on receipt of such application will call upon the respondent No.5 namely Bharuddin Mian as also the relevant records, if required, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as the respondent No.5 and other Government officials shall take decision in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such application on its own merit.

¶36

8. In view thereof, this writ petition is accordingly, disposed of with the above directions and observations.

¶37

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶38

Madhav

Safiran Bibi Alias Sabiran Bibi And Anr. v. Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Safiran Bibi Alias Sabiran Bibi And Anr. v. Land Reforms And Revenue Department

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

Shiv Shankar Singh Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Sagar Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kashilal Tudu Vs Bhukhlal Manjhi And Ors.

Ms Chandra Construction Through Its Proprietor Kameshwar Prasad Yadav Vs The Union Of India Through Ministry Of Road Transport Andhighways And Ors.

Dil Mohammad Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Khagen Hansda Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Land Reforms Govt of Jharkhand