Dismissed

Shiv Kumar Ray v. Union of India And Ors.

Jharkhand HC15 Feb 2023WPC/1810/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand disposed of a writ petition regarding land acquisition and rent receipt issuance for petitioners recognized as raiyats, directing Circle Officers to verify records and compensation authorities to process claims via a corrected sale deed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to approach respondent No. 9 within 2 months with correct sale deed for rent receipt issuance; compensation claim to be processed separately by competent authority within 1 month

Shiv Kumar Ray Vs Union of India And Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 1810 of 2008

¶3

Shiv Kumar Ray

¶4

Ram Kumar Ray Both sons of Smt. Lalita Devi (now deceased)

¶5

… … Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union of India through the Ministry of Railway, New Delhi

¶8

Deputy Chief Engineer (Con.) Eastern Railway, Dhanbad

¶9

The State of Jharkhand

¶10

The Commissioner, Department of Revenue & Land Reforms, Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶11

Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh

¶12

Additional Collector, Hazaribagh

¶13

Sub Divisional Officer, Hazaribagh

¶14

Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Hazaribagh

¶15

Circle Officer, Katkamsandi, Hazaribagh

¶16

… … Respondents

¶17

¶18

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶19

¶20

For the Petitioners : Mr. Umesh Kumar Choubey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rishi Raj Verma, A.C. to S.C. III For Resp. No. 1 & 2 : Ms. Alpana Verma, Advocate ---

¶21

13 /15.02.2023 Learned counsel for the parties are present.

¶22

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

¶23

“For issuance of direction upon the respondents in particular respondent No. 9 accept rent of raiyati land of the petitioner in Village Rewali, Thana no. 124, Khata No. 147, Plot No. 2, Area 0.80 acre, when the petitioner has recognized as raiyat in Raiyat Status Appeal Case no. 5/2006 and issued rent receipt to the petitioner.

¶24

For further direction for payment of adequate compensation from respondent No. 1 to 2 in lieu of acquisition of 0.22 acre of land out of 0.80 acre for purpose of construction of Broad Gauge (B.G.) Railway Track from Koderma to Ranchi, via Hazariabagh-Barkakana alongwith solatium and other benefit.

¶25

For further direction upon the respondents for not acting pursuant to Land Transfer (Railway) Case no. 5 of 2004-05 (Annexure-4) and memo no. 1011 dated 23.03.2006 (Annexure-5) till enter into the reference under Land Acquisition Act for payment of compensation due to potentiality of acquired land for Railway Department.”

¶26

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are claiming compensation in connection with the property which has been acquired for Railways. The learned counsel has further submitted that at one point of time the Jamabandi of the original petitioner was cancelled and the said order was subject matter of

¶27

¶28

appeal and the Appellate Authority in Appeal case No. 5 of 2006 (Annexure-6) has specifically directed to restore the Jamabandi and has also directed for issuance of rent receipts. He submits that in spite of such order, the Circle Officer (Respondent No. 9) did not issue the rent receipts and therefore present writ petition has been filed. The learned counsel has submitted that at the various portion of the writ petition, the sale deed number has been mentioned as Sale deed No. 2346 dated 08.04.1958, but the correct sale deed is Sale Deed No. 2396 dated 08.04.1958. The learned counsel submits that due to inadvertence, the sale deed number was incorrectly mentioned in the writ petition, but from perusal of the various orders, it is apparent that the petitioners are claiming through sale deed No. 2396 dated 08.04.1958 and it may be recorded that the petitioners are not claiming through sale deed No. 2346 dated 08.04.1958.

¶29

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State on the other hand has submitted that the compensation amount in connection with the land has already been deposited, but in view of the incorrect sale deed mentioned in the writ petition and pursuant to various orders passed by this court, it was found that sale deed number 2346 dated 08.04.1958 is of another person. He further submits that since the petitioners are submitting that the sale deed number is wrongly mentioned in the writ petition and the correct sale deed number is 2396 dated 08.04.1958, it is for the petitioners to approach the Circle Officer who shall do the needful in terms of the order passed by the Appellate Authority as contained in Annexure-6. He further submits that before the Circle Officer the petitioners will have to produce the necessary documents including original sale deed bearing No. 2396 dated 08.04.1958 and they may also be directed to produce a certified copy of the same sale deed.

¶30

5. At this, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that some time frame may be granted as the petitioners have been deprived of money for a long time.

¶31

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case this court finds that it is not in dispute that order was passed in Appeal No. 5 of 2006 (Annexure-6) wherein a direction was issued to restore the Jamabandi

¶32

¶33

and also to issue rent receipts. But it appears that the rent receipt was not issued to the petitioners which became a cause of action to the petitioners to approach this court through this writ petition.

¶34

7. In view of the submissions mentioned above, it is hereby recorded that petitioners are claiming the property by virtue of sale deed No. 2396 dated 08.04.1958 and not through sale deed No. 2346 dated 08.04.1958. This is also apparent from the orders annexed with the writ petition although in some of the orders, the sale deed number has been mentioned as 2346 dated 08.04.1958 and in the same order, sale deed number at another place has been mentioned as Sale deed No. 2396 dated 08.04.1958.

¶35

8. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of enabling the petitioners/legal heirs of the original petitioner to approach the respondent no. 9 along with the original sale deed No. 2396 dated 08.04.1958 along with certified copy of the same on 13.03.2023 by filing a detailed representation and a copy of this order. Upon such appearance by the petitioners/legal heirs of the original petitioner, the Circle Officer shall do the needful, verify the records and pass appropriate order and also issue rent receipt in light of the order contained in Annexure-6, if there is no other legal impediment. The entire exercise is directed to be completed by the Circle Officer within a period of 2 months from 13.03.2023. The reasoned order be communicated to the petitioners/legal heirs of the original petitioner through speed post at the address to be provided in the representation itself.

¶36

9. Thereafter the petitioners/legal heirs of the original petitioner shall approach the competent authority for redressal of their grievance regarding compensation who in turn shall do the needful within a period of 1 month from the date of filing such claim by passing a reasoned order after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners/legal heirs of the original petitioner or their authorized representative. The admissible amount be also paid within a period of 1 month from the date of the reasoned order in accordance with law after due identification. The reasoned order be communicated to the petitioners/legal heirs of the original petitioner through speed post at the address to be provided in the representation itself.

¶37

¶38

10. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. It is made clear that this court has not entered into entitlement of the petitioners with regard to the compensation.

¶39

11. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

¶40

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶41

Binit

Shiv Kumar Ray v. Union of India And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar Ray v. Union of India And Ors.

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

Surendra Prasad Vs Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Jay Prakash Harlalka Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Suresh Kr Mehta And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief Secretary And Ors.

Bihari BHAGATalias Bihari Mahto Vs State of Bihar And Ors.

Rungta Projects Limited Vs Central Coalfields Limited

Most Shakuntala Mehta Vs S a I L