Writ petition seeking direction to restore 0.76 acres of land, alleged to be forcefully captured decades after an official 1962-63 acquisition, was dismissed for vague statements and inordinate delay.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.1760 of 2020
Dashmi Devi
..... … Petitioner
Versus
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Mohan Kr. Dubey, Advocate For the Res. Nos.1-4 : Mr. Gaurav Raj, A.C. to A.A.G.-II For the Res. Nos.6 & 7 : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, Advocate --------
Learned counsel for the petitioner while pressing the present writ petition has confined the prayer to the extent of issuance of direction upon the respondent-Railway authorities to restore the possession of land appertaining to Mouza-Haratu, Khata No.60, Plot No.565, Thana No.175 (Namkum), District-Ranchi measuring an area of 0.76 acres to the petitioner.
The case of the petitioner is that her predecessor-in-interest is the recorded tenant of the land appertaining to Mouza-Haratu, Khata No.60, Plot Nos.393, 394, 565 and 566 measuring an area of about 2.40 acres. A part of the said land to the extent of 1.64 acres out of 2.40 acres was acquired by the State Government for Electric Equipment Factory, Tatisilway, Ranchi (an unit of erstwhile Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation Limited). The petitioner was provided information by the office of the said factory through letter dated 9th May, 2018 that as per the documents available in the office, no land had been acquired except 1.64 acres appertaining to Mouza-Haratu, Khata No.60, Plot Nos.393, 394, 565 and 566. The petitioner has also relied upon the information provided to him by the District Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Public Information Officer, Ranchi vide letter no.1092 dated 14th July, 2017 informing inter alia that only 0.68 acre of land out of 1.44 acres
- 2 -
appertaining to Plot No.565 under Khata No.60 Mouza-Haratu was acquired vide Case No.33/1962-63. Thus, the grievance of the petitioner is that rest part of the land i.e., 1.44 acre-0.68 acre=.76 acre should be restored to him.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the content of the writ petition.
The petitioner has claimed in the writ petition that the name of his predecessor has been mentioned in the record of rights as the raiyat of the land in question. It has also been stated by the petitioner particularly in paragraph 10 of the writ petition that the Railways authority forcefully captured about 76 decimals of land of the concerned mouza. It has however not been specifically stated by the petitioner as to when the railway authorities have forcefully captured the said part of the land as claimed by the petitioner. Admittedly, the land of Khata No.60 Mouza Haratu was acquired by the State Government in the year 1962-63 i.e., about six decades back. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India making vague statements after such a huge delay which is otherwise plenary in nature.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Rohit
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition for restoration of land carved out of an acquisition dated 65 years ago can be entertained given vague statements and delay.
Whether the Court should entertain a claim of forceful capture of land when the impugned acquisition is from 1962-63 and the petitioner makes vague statements.
Dashmi Devi
The State of Jharkhand
The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi
The Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi
The Circle Officer, Namkum
The Manager of FA & CAO, South Eastern Railway
Rajesh Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
