Allowed

Md. Akramuddin v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC11 Mar 2022WPC/5283/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Ranchi, allowed a writ petition filed by the legal heir of a land loser. The court directed the Central Coalfield Limited to pay monetary compensation and employment benefits within 60 days, noting the claim was valid despite verification delays. The court imposed a salary withhold on the General Manager of Land and Revenue due to the delay.

What did the court decide?

Directed payment of compensation with interest and employment benefits within 60 days; withheld salary of the General Manager, Land and Revenue until compliance.

Md. Akramuddin Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors. — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI [Civil Writ Jurisdiction] W.P.[C] No. 5283 of 2003 Mohammad Akramuddin

¶2

.... .. ... Petitioner(s)

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand & Ors.

¶5

.. ... ...Respondent(s)

¶6

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through :- Video Conferencing)

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the respondents/CCL : None For the respondents/State : Mr. P.C. Roy, SC (L&C)-I

¶8

07/ 11.03.2022 . Heard, Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.C. Roy, learned SC (L&C)-I for the State.

¶9

However, no body appears on behalf of the respondents- CCL, on repeated calls.

¶10

It has been submitted that a list of Panel Lawyers for respondents- CCL is empanelled in the Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, but it is surprising that the instant Writ Petition is pending before this Court since the year, 2003 i.e. for 19 years, as such, much time has already elapsed and Counter-affidavit has already been filed by the respondents- CCL on 24.03.2004, but the respondents- CCL has not taken any step to pursue the instant Writ Petition. This shows that legal office of the respondents- CCL is completely silent in disposal of the cases pending before the High Court, as such, this Court, after perusal of the records, is passing this order today.

¶11

Mr. Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel has submitted that he has already resigned from the Panel of respondents- CCL in the year 2014.

¶12

Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that it is unfortunate that more than 8 years have elapsed since the date of filing of counter-affidavit, but the Law Officer of CCL has not authorized any Lawyer to represent the CCL in this case before this Court, as such, the case cannot be kept pending at the mercy of respondents- CCL.

¶13

Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that the original writ petitioner [Md. Hanif, S/o Jehal Mian, resident of Kathara Asna Pani, P.O. & P.S. Sadam, District- Bokaro] has preferred the instant Writ Petition to forthwith pay the amount of compensation at the prevalent market rate along with interest on account of acquisition of land by the respondent- State of Jharkhand, which was acquired for handing over the same to the respondent No.4 [The Central Coalfield Limited through its Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Darbhanga House, Ranchi] for their use; and for a further direction upon the respondents to provide employment to the dependents of the petitioner.

¶14

-2-

¶15

Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that from perusal of supplementary affidavit filed on 27.02.2019, it appears the land appertaining to Plot No.981 area 4.35 acres, Plot No.982 area 5.23 acres, and Plot No.981 area 3.40 acres, total area 12.98 acres of Village :-Kathara, Thana No.117 was acquired by the State of Jharkhand, which was handed-over to respondent no.4, C.C.L. The C.C.L. has not paid compensation because of the letter issued by the then General Manager, Land & Revenue, as contained in Reference No.Rajasv /03/156-57, Dated 24.02.2003, wherein a clarification has been sought from the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, though the same has already been clarified in Verification No.1/1992-93 corresponding to Verification Case No.150/1997-98 whereby it has been stated that such verification has already been accorded by the then Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, on 25.10.1997 holding the claim of the raiyats to be valid.

¶16

Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that since the acquisition has been made in the year 1957 to 1965 and the land, in question, has already been acquired by the respondents- CCL, but the respondents- CCL authorities are not taking care by paying compensation of the same on the flimsy ground of pendency of the verification, which has already been done by the then Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro vide his Letter dated 25.10.1997 and brought on record before this Court by way of supplementary affidavit filed on 27.02.2019.

¶17

Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents- CCL on 16.03.2004, stating therein the relevant fact at part of Para-5 in Page No.3 of the counter-affidavit, which may profitably quoted herein-under:-

¶18

“Finding the above inconsistencies, General Manager (Land and Revenue), CCL in a letter bearing no.Rajashav/03/156-57 dated 24.2.03 has requested the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, to clarify the above inconsistencies and to confirm whether tenancy rights were actually conferred on the petitioner or not. A reply to this communication is still awaited from Deputy Commissioner at Bokaro. Copy of the above letter is placed herewith and marked as Annexure “B”. It is also highlighted here that in para 3(iv) of writ petition the petitioner himself has admitted that mining operation was started in the year 1965 itself on the related land. Evidently there was no resistance from the petitioner or anybody else. Apparently the present claim is after-thought and fabricated papers were submitted after thirty years from the date of notification and payment of compensation to other raiyats. The petitioner got authentication/ settlement proceedings initiated even that proceeding is also incomplete and not in order. So far as claim of employment is concerned there is no provision in any of the Land Acquisition Acts for providing employment. In the instant case the lands were acquired in the year 1957, 1959 and 1961 by the predecessors of CCL and during that period there was no provision in the company for providing employment against acquisition of land, hence it is denied.”

¶19

Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner has thus, submitted that in spite of relevant fact stated in counter-affidavit, the monetary compensation has not been paid, though in the similar circumstances, the respondents- CCL has granted employment to the other land-losers.

¶20

Since no body appears on behalf of the respondents- CCL even on repeated calls and the matter is pending before this Court since the year 2003 i.e.

¶21

-3-

¶22

approximately 19 years have already elapsed with regard to acquisition of land from the year 1957 to the year 1965, as such, this Court deems it proper to pass appropriate order on the basis of materials available on record.

¶23

Mr. P.C. Roy, learned SC (L&C)-I for the State has submitted that such verification has already been made by the respondents- State and it is duty of the respondents- CCL to pay the compensation in terms of the employment and monetary compensation to the land-losers.

¶24

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State,the instant Writ Petition stands allowed.

¶25

So far compensation with regard to employment is concerned, the same shall be considered by the respondents- CCL within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt /production of a copy of this order in accordance with Rehabilitation package as the original writ petitioner, Md. Hanif died leaving behind his legal heir, Md. Akramuddin, who has been substituted vide order dated 02.04.2012 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶26

So far monetary compensation is concerned, the same shall be paid along with interest to the legal heirs/ present petitioner as the query which has been made by the General Manager, Land & Revenue vide Reference No.Rajashav/03/156-57 dated 24.04.2003 is completely vacuous one. The same has not been clarified by Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro on 25.10.1997.

¶27

Since there is delay in payment of compensation, as much time has already elapsed, but the respondents- CCL is not looking into the grievances of the petitioner which was within the knowledge of the CCL, as such, this Court has no other option, but to withhold the salary of the General Manager, Land & Revenue, Darbhanga House, Ranchi.

¶28

It is directed that the General Manager, Land and Revenue, Darbhanga House, Ranchi, shall not withdraw the salary till payment of compensation along with interest is made to land-losers/petitioner/successor.

¶29

The amount of interest shall be recovered from the personal salary of the erring officer(s) of the Respondents- CCL in accordance with law, as respondentsCCL shall have to face financial burden.

¶30

The compliance report be submitted to this Court at the earliest.

¶31

Let a copy of this order be communicated through “FAX” to the 'The Central Coalfield Limited through its Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Darbhanga House, Ranchi' at once.

¶32

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

¶33

Sandeep/

Md. Akramuddin v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Akramuddin v. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Pyare Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Majhar Vs State of Jharkhand

Shanker Banerjee Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Land and Revenue

Rajesh Kumar Vs the Central Coalfields Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Raghunandan Singh Vs State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Excise and Prohibition

Project Officer,Arrah Colliery Vs a.L.C.C,Hazaribagh-Cum-Contr