KISTO PADA PRAMANIK Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE background of the matter is that a large chunk of land situated at Dindli in the district of Singhbhum was acquired by the State Government in the year 1964 for public purpose viz. for construction of houses under different houses scheme but since no award was prepared with the period as provided under Section 11 -A of the Land Acquisition Act and therefore, a writ application was filed before the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court being CWJC No. 1882 of 1986(R) by some of the awar -dees for declaration that the entire land acquisition proceeding to be ultra virus and without Jurisdiction in view of the expressed provision of under Sec.11 -A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment Act 1984). A Division Bench of the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court by its Judgment dated 21.5.1997 allowed the writ application holding that in view of Sec.11 -A of the Land Acquisition Act, the entire acquisition proceeding in which declaration was made prior to 24.9.1984 have lapsed, as the award was not been made within two years from that date, therefore, the proceeding lapsed.

(3.) THE claims of the writ petition in this writ application are that though their lands were acquired under the aforesaid acquisition, but they have not been paid their compensation amount in terms of the order passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1005 -6 of 1988. On the other hand the stand of the respondents as it appears from their counter affidavit is that the petitioners did not accept the compensation amount for which several notices were issued. It is further stated that the petitioners were neither the parties in the proceeding before the Supreme Court nor in the writ application filed before this Court giving rise to the order of the Supreme Court, therefore, the petitioners cannot take advantage of the order passed by the Supreme Court. It is further stated that the respondents did not withheld the amount of compensation of the petitioners, rather the petitioners deliberately and willfully refused to accept the compensation amount. The learned counsel for the State further has drawn my attention to An -nexure -C to the counter affidavit the order passed by this Court on 28.3.2001 in CWJC 531 of 2001 and submitted that exactly in the similar circumstances as in the present case Nobin Chandra Mahto also filed a writ application before this Court being CWJC No. 531 of 2001, who was also not a party either in the earlier writ application or before the Supreme Court for the same relief as has been made by the writ petitioner in the present writ petition and this Court by order dated 28.3.2003 held that the lands of the petitioner were acquired under Land Acquisition Proceeding the respondents are duty bound to pay the compensation but the petitioner cannot take advantage of the order of the Supreme Court because he was not a party before the Supreme Court in the SLP. However, the writ application was disposed of with a direction to the respondent to pay compensation to the petitioner if his land has been acquired by them under the Land Acquisition Proceeding and the petitioner was directed to appear before the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Adityapaur, Industrial Area Development Authority for the aforesaid purpose. A copy of this order has been annexed as Annexure -C to the counter affidavit.