Disposed

Mahendra Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 Jul 2024WPC/686/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought declaration as displaced person and issuance of Vikas Pustika under Jharkhand Rehabilitation Policy after acquisition of 8.075 acres. Court held the Circle Officer's report was not conclusive for want of documents and directed fresh verification and decision on booklet issuance.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to petitioner to submit land documents; respondents directed to verify afresh and take decision on issuance of Vikas Pustika.

Mahendra Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 686 of 2021

---

Mahendra Yadav

… … Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶9

The Deputy Commissioner, Koderma

¶10

The Circle Officer, Domchanch, District- Koderma

¶11

The Executive Engineer-cum-Rehabilitation Officer (Kesho Reservoir Scheme), P.O. & P.S.- Barhi, District- Hazaribagh

¶12

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Tenughat Project, Hazaribagh

¶13

…. … Respondents

¶14

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶15

For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhawesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocate Ms. Akata Anand, Advocate Mr. S.N. Tiwari, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, A.C. to Sr.S.C.-I

¶16

Order No. 07 Dated: 03.07.2024

¶17

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to forthwith declare the petitioner as “displaced person” and to issue “Displaced Family Development Booklet” as well as to extend him the benefits under Rehabilitation Policy, 2003 subsequently revised as Rehabilitation Policy, 2012 formulated by the Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand for the benefits of the displaced families due to acquisition of land made by the said department for implementing irrigation project schemes.

¶18

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the joint property of the petitioner and other co-parceners measuring area of about 8.075 acres was acquired by the respondents and the compensation in lieu thereof was also paid to them, the

¶19

¶20

quantum of which was subsequently enhanced by this Court. Since the petitioner is a displaced person, he is entitled for issuance of “Displaced Family Development Booklet” which is popularly known as “Vikas Pustika” under Rehabilitation Policy, 2003 subsequently revised as Rehabilitation Policy, 2012 of the Government of Jharkhand. The petitioner repeatedly requested the respondent authorities for issuance of “Vikas Pustika”, however the same was not issued which compelled him to prefer the present writ petition.

¶21

3. Mr. Ranjan Kumar, learned A.C. to Sr.S.C.-I, refers to paragraph nos. 13, 14 and 15 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents on 26.11.2021 which read as under:

¶22

“13. That as per the writ petition, petitioner claims for declaration of “displaced person” and issuance of “Displaced Family Development Booklet” under Rehabilitation Policy. In these circumstances, the answering respondent- Executive Engineer, Water Ways Division, Barhi has written a letter to Circle Officer, Domchach, Koderma and asked details of leftover land of the petitioner after acquiring the land vide letter no. 152 dated 17.03.2021.

¶23

A copy of letter no. 152 dated 17.03.2021 has been annexed as Annexure-A to the said counter affidavit.

¶24

14. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the Circe Officer, Domchach, Koderma, after due verification of the relevant documents of the petitioner, found that Jamabandi of total 32.1425 acres of land is running out of which land measuring an area of 8.075 acres has been acquired, hence an area of 24.0675 acres is left for respective Khata number after land acquisition.

¶25

A copy of letter no. 416 dated 27.07.2021 has been annexed as Annexure-B to the said counter affidavit.

¶26

¶27

15. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the petitioner does not fall under the category of “displaced person” as per rehabilitation policy.”

¶28

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the content of the writ petition.

¶29

5. On perusal of letter no. 416 dated 27.07.2021 issued by the Circle Officer, Domchanch (the respondent no. 4) to the Executive Engineer, Waterways Division, Barhi (the respondent no. 5), it appears that as per the enquiry report of the concerned Deputy Revenue Inspector/Incharge Circle Inspector, the petitioner did not submit the required documents relating to the land in question. Under the said circumstance, the information as sought by the respondent no. 5, was furnished on the basis of the details available in Register-II. On the basis of the said information, the respondents have taken stand in the counter affidavit that the petitioner does not come under the category of “displaced person”.

¶30

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no reason as to why the petitioner will not submit the required documents relating to the land in question to the concerned Circle Officer so as to prepare the appropriate report and to submit it before the competent authority with respect to taking fresh decision for issuance of “Vikas Pustika” in favour of the petitioner.

¶31

7. This Court is of the view that the information provided by the respondent no. 4 to the respondent no. 5 cannot be said to be a conclusive one as the same was prepared without having sufficient documents relating to the land in question.

¶32

¶33

8. Considering the facts and circumstance, the petitioner is at liberty to furnish the required documents relating to the land in question before the respondent no. 4 within four weeks. On receipt of the said documents, the respondent no. 4 shall prepare a report and submit the same before the respondent no. 5 within two weeks thereafter, who based on the said report, shall take appropriate decision with respect to issuance of “Vikas Pustika” in favour of the petitioner within two weeks thereafter.

¶34

9. The writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid liberty and direction.

¶35

Ritesh/

¶36

Mahendra Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Yadav 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

Subir Chandra Ghoshal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhuneshwar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Mohan Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand

Narayan Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary the Land and Revenue Department

Sumitra Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Amit Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand