Dismissed

Parmeshwar Modi v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC12 Apr 2022LPA/813/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Letters Patent Appeal challenged an order dismissing a writ petition seeking compensation for land acquisition. The bench held that since the claim involves disputed facts regarding entitlement and prior objections were not assailed, the writ court rightly declined adjudication. The appeal was dismissed upholding the writ court's observation.

What did the court decide?

The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed.

Parmeshwar Modi Vs the State of Jharkhand — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction) LPA No. 813 of 2019

¶2

Parmeshwar Modi @ Parweshwar Modi, son of Late Bivyacharan Modi, resident of Manikpur, PO & PS Jasidih, District Deoghar;

¶3

Shakuntala Devi w/o late Din Dayal Modi, r/o Manikpur, PO+PSJasidih, District-Deoghar. … … Appellants/Petitioners

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand;

¶6

The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, PO, PS & District Deoghar;

¶7

The Land Acquisition Officer, Deoghar, PO, PS & District Deoghar;

¶8

The Circle Officer, Deoghar, PO, PS & District Deoghar.

¶9

… … Respondents/Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

¶12

------For the Appellants : Mr. Peeyush Krishna Choudhary, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Praveen Akhauri, SC (Mines)-I

¶13

-------- O R D E R

¶14

12^th April 2022

¶15

Per, Shree Chandrashekhar,J.

¶16

IA No. 2688 of 2022

¶17

This application has been filed for substitution of legal heirs of the

¶18

appellant No.2, namely, Din Dayal Modi.

¶19

This application is supported by an affidavit of Parmeshwar Modi who is the appellant No.1.

¶20

By filing a supplementary affidavit dated 8^th April 2022, the death certificate of Din Dayal Modi has been brought on record.

¶21

In paragraph No.4 of IA No. 2688 of 2022, the applicant has stated that Smt. Shakuntala Devi is the widow of the deceased the appellant No.2 and Rohit Kumar Burnwal is the adopted son of the deceased.

¶22

We are of the opinion that for prosecuting this Letters Patent Appeal, all legal heirs/successors of the appellant No.2 are not required to be brought on record and by joining widow of the appellant No.2 the purpose would be served. We are indicating this for the reason that in IA No. 2688 of 2022, the applicants have made statement that Rohit Kumar Burnwal is the adopted son of the appellant No.2 in support of which neither affidavit of widow of the appellant No.2 has been filed nor adoption deed or any other evidence has been produced on record.

¶23

Necessary corrections to be carried out during course of the day by red ink.

¶24

2 LPA No. 813 of 2019

¶25

IA No. 2688 of 2022 is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

¶26

LPA No. 813 of 2019

¶27

The appellants are in appeal against the order dated 13^th September 2019 passed in WP(C) No. 2049 of 2017.

¶28

Before the writ Court, the appellants who were the writ petitioners, raised a claim for payment of compensation for the land comprised under Plot No. 181 within district Deoghar which according to them were acquired by the State Government. The appellants in support of their claim asserted that the lands in question were settled in favour of their ancestors by Pradhan granting Patta which was affirmed by the competent Court of civil jurisdiction. As would appear from the order dated 13^th September 2019, the appellant No.1 set up a case that the land pertaining to Plot No. 181 which was initially settled in the name of Uma Charan Modi by grant of Patta by Pradhan came in possession of his ancestors and since then he is in peaceful possession of the said land.

¶29

The claim of the appellants was resisted by the State of Jharkhand taking a definite position that compensation for acquisition of the lands was paid to the original land owners. It was also brought to the notice of the writ Court that with similar grievances, LAR Case Nos. 101 of 1979, 128 of 1979 and 117 of 1979 were filed which stood dismissed by orders dated 28^th February 1986, 1^st March 1986 and 22^nd February 1986 respectively.

¶30

Mr. Peeyush Krishna Choudhary, the learned counsel for the appellants, submits that deprivation of properties of the appellants without paying compensation would amount to violation of the Constitutional rights of the appellants as guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and while so the writ Court has powers to direct the respondent-State to pay compensation to the appellants.

¶31

From the order dated 13^th September 2019, it appears that before the writ Court the appellants invoked the provisions under section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 on the ground that for more than five years compensation was not paid to them and while so the acquisition as claimed by the State of Jharkhand would lapse though it shall remain open to the State to acquire the said land by paying fair compensation to them. From the materials on record, it would appear that few persons filed application under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for apportionment of compensation in lieu of acquisition by the State of Jharkhand. The Land

¶32

3 LPA No. 813 of 2019

¶33

Acquisition Act, 1894 provides forum for filing objection before making of the award, after the award is prepared and for apportionment of award, if any dispute for claim arises. Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provides a forum for appeal in the proceedings before Court. It provides that an appeal shall lie in any proceedings under the Act to the High Court from the award, or from any part of the award of the Court. It further provides that from any decree of the High Court passed on such appeal an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.

¶34

LAR Case Nos. 101 of 1979, 128 of 1979 and 117 of 1979 which were filed by Panchanan Modi, Rameshwar Modi and Dindayal Modi under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for apportionment of the award were dismissed and those orders are not under challenge in the present proceeding. Mr. Praveen Akhauri, the learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand submits that from the averments made by the appellants in the writ petition, it is apparent that there is a dispute inter se between the appellants and the persons who received compensation in lieu of acquisition of the land.

¶35

The learned writ Court has held as under:

¶36

“ ….. …. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. …... ..

¶37

18. This Court after taking into consideration the fact in entirety and for the reasons recorded herein, is of the view that the claim of the petitioner for payment of the amount of compensation has been disputed by the State, therefore, in such a disputed factual aspect, there cannot be any adjudication with respect to the claim of the petitioners, more particularly, taking into consideration the orders passed in LAR Case No.101 of 1979 and LAR Case No.117 of 1979 wherein the claim for apportionment has been disallowed which have not been assailed by the petitioners, accordingly, this Court is of the view that the petitioners have not been able to make out a case for passing any positive direction in their favour.

¶38

…... ….. ….. …... …... ….. ….. ….. ….. ...”

¶39

In the above factual scenario, we are of the opinion that the learned writ Court has rightly held that the writ petition in view of the factual dispute cannot be entertained.

¶40

LPA No. 813 of 2019 is dismissed.

¶41

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

¶42

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)

¶43

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 12^th April 2022 Nibha/Madhav-NAFR

Parmeshwar Modi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parmeshwar Modi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyam Lal B P Vs Employers in Relation to the Management of Tapin South Colliery of Ms C C Ltd.

Ashok Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand State Electricity Bo Vs Beco Industries Ltd.

The State of Jharkhand Vs Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee

The State of Jharkhand Vs Shyam Narayan Dubey

The State of Jharkhand Vs Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee