The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order for the demolition of a house and delivery of land possession. The court held that the petitioner failed to prove he had paid compensation due 20 years prior under a final order, and the challenge was barred by delay.
The writ petition and Interim Application No. 804 of 2021 were dismissed.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 567 of 2021
Ram Kumar Oraon
… … Petitioner
Versus
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, Sr. SC-I
-----
Order No. 02 Dated: 15.02.2021
The present writ petition is taken up today through Video conferencing.
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.01.2021 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 2 – the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga in Miscellaneous Case No. 15 of 1999-2000, whereby an order of demolition of the petitioner’s house situated over the land appertaining to Khata No. 03, Plot No. 371, measuring an area of 0.08 acre (wrongly written in the order as 0.08 decimal) has been passed under Section 71-A of the CNT Act, 1908 with a further direction to give possession of the said land to respondent no. 6. Further prayer has been made for quashing the notice dated 29.01.2021 issued by the respondent no. 5 – the Circle Officer, Kisko, Lohardaga directing the petitioner to vacate the said house till 15.02.2021. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an agreement for sale was entered into between Barnabas Lakra and Mahli Oraon (the father of the petitioner) for the land under Khata No. 3, Plot No. 371, measuring an area of 11 decimals, out of an area of 90 decimals of land on 22.02.1985 and pursuant thereto, Barnabas Lakra received full consideration with the condition that he would register the said land in the name of Mahli Oraon after taking permission of the respondent no. 2. It is further submitted that the father of the petitioner was residing on the said land since 1995 having I.D. of Election
2
Commission of India issued on 01.01.1995 for the same address. A land restoration case being S.A.R Case No. 36 of 1992-93 was filed under Section 71-A of the CNT Act before the respondent no. 4 – the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Lohardaga by the respondent no. 6 – the son of Barnabas Lakra, which was allowed vide order dated 01.12.1994. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner’s father namely, Mahli Oraon filed appeal before the respondent no. 3 – the Additional Collector, Lohardaga vide Appeal Case No. 5R 15 of 1995-96, which was decided on 29.07.1997 directing to restore the land in favour of the respondent no. 6 except 0.08 acre of land upon which the house was constructed with a further direction to the petitioner’s father to provide another equivalent land of area 0.08 acre to the respondent no. 6 within six month, failing which that part of the land would also be restored. Thereafter, Miscellaneous Case No. 15/99-2000 was filed by the respondent no. 6 before the respondent no. 2 which was disposed of vide order dated 19.09.2000 directing the father of the petitioner to pay compensation @ Rs. 3,500/- per decimal, total amounting to Rs. 28,000/- to the applicant i.e., the respondent no. 6. Subsequently, final order in Miscellaneous Case No. 15/99-2000 was passed on 12.01.2021 for demolition of the construction made over the said 0.08 acre of land and to hand over the possession of the said land to the respondent no. 6 due to non-compliance of the order dated 19.09.2000. It is also submitted that the father of the petitioner had in fact complied the order dated 19.09.2000 by paying the compensation amount of Rs. 28,000/to the respondent no. 6 in cash in the year 2000 itself and the said case was disposed of. In the meantime, the father of the petitioner namely, Mahli Oraon died and his son namely, Ram Kumar Oraon (the petitioner herein) was substituted as opposite party. However, after 20 years, respondent no. 6 again filed an application in an already disposed of case i.e., Misc. Case No. 15/99-2000, whereafter the respondent no. 2 passed the impugned order dated 12.01.2021 for demolition of the house of the petitioner and for delivery of possession of the said land to the respondent no. 6. Subsequently, a notice dated 29.01.2021 was sent to the petitioner by the respondent no. 5 for vacating the house till 15.02.2021. It is further submitted that no formal execution case was filed by the respondent no. 6 seeking implementation of the order dated
3
19.09.2000 passed by the respondent no. 2, rather he filed an application in an already disposed of matter that too after about 20 years, which was allowed by the respondent no. 2 ignoring the legal procedure for execution of any order passed by him.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner has claimed right over the said land on the strength of an agreement for sale executed on 22.02.1985 between the father of the petitioner and father of the respondent no. 6. The claim of the petitioner is that earlier the respondent no. 2, vide order dated 19.09.2000, had directed the father of the petitioner namely, Mahli Oraon to pay compensation of Rs. 28,000/- to the respondent no. 6 in lieu of 0.08 acre of land upon which the house of the petitioner was constructed and in compliance of the said order, the father of the petitioner had paid the said amount to the respondent no. 6 in cash and the order was complied in the year 2000 itself. However, the petitioner has neither produced any documentary evidence before the respondent no. 2 nor before this Court to substantiate his contention much less any receipt of the said amount received by the respondent no. 6. Even on the query made by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to disclose the exact date of payment of the compensation amount claimed to have been made by the petitioner’s father. It further appears that the order dated 19.09.2000 passed by the respondent no. 2 was neither challenged by the petitioner or his father before any superior court nor complied the direction made therein and he kept silent for more than 20 years. Since the said order has attained finality, any challenge to the legality of the said order is not permissible before this Court after more than two decades. I am of the view that the respondent no. 2 has rightly passed the order of demolition of the construction made over the said land on the ground of non-compliance of the order of payment of compensation for more than 20 years. If the fact regarding payment of compensation awarded by a competent court of law is denied by the awardee, the burden of proof shifts on the person who claims that the order of the court has been complied by making payment of compensation amount and such burden may be released by adducing sufficient evidence on his behalf. Any vague statement in this regard
4
cannot be accepted.
4. On perusal of the order dated 12.01.2021, it appears that earlier the respondent no. 3 had passed the order dated 29.07.1997 in Appeal Case No. 5R 15/1995-96, wherein it was ordered that if equivalent land of 0.08 acre was not provided to the respondent no. 6 within six months, then the possession of the said land would be handed over to him. When the said order was not complied, the respondent no. 6 filed Misc. Case No. 15/99-2000, wherein the order for payment of compensation was passed by the respondent no. 2, vide order dated 19.09.2000, however, the said order was also not complied by the petitioner’ father. It would thus appear from the aforesaid fact that inspite of sufficient opportunity given to the petitioner/his father, he failed to comply the order of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and, therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner raising procedural irregularity in the proceeding cannot be accepted at this stage more so when Section 71-A has been introduced in the CNT Act, 1908 by the Bihar Scheduled Areas Regulation, 1969 empowering the Deputy Commissioner to restore the possession of an unlawfully transferred land to the member of scheduled tribe.
5. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, I find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 12.01.2021 passed by the respondent no. 2 as well as the subsequent notice dated 29.01.2021 issued by the respondent no. 5 while exercising extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court.
6. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly
dismissed.
I.A. No. 804 of 2021 also stands dismissed.
Manish
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the challenge to the order of demolition and delivery of possession is permissible after 20 years when the original order remains final.
Whether the burden of proof lies on the petitioner to substantiate the claim of having paid compensation despite failing to produce documentary evidence.
Whether there is any infirmity in the order passed under Section 71-A of the CNT Act, 1908 for non-compliance of the direction to pay compensation.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ram Kumar Oraon
The State of Jharkhand
The Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga
The Additional Collector, Lohardaga
The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Lohardaga
The Circle Officer, Kisko, Lohardaga
Rajesh Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court