- (1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for making payment of the compensation for acquisition of land situated in Mouza Chas, Thana Chas, Thana No. 30, Khata No. 752, Plot No. 7788 having an area 16.50 acres out of total area of 31.85 acres on account of the fact that the land had been acquired by the Department of Forest, Government of Bihar/Jharkhand long back and compensation for the said acquisition of land has not been paid to the petitioner till date as per the prevalent law. It is the case of the petitioner that he is grandson of Late Kirti Chandra Ghoshal, in whose name the land was originally recorded and after his death and the death of his three sons the petitioner is the sole heir of the said property as the other two sons of Late Kirti Chandra Ghoshal had died issueless. It is further submitted that the aforesaid land was acquired by the Forest Department for forestry and Kirti Chandra Ghoshal was a Raiyat of the said land, who applied for compensation before the Forest Settlement Officer, Dhanbad and on 4th June, 1957. He was directed to appear with relevant documents on 15th June, 1957 failing which it was indicated that the decision shall be made ex parte. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the averments made in the writ petition stated that by virtue of a compromise petition filed on 31.3.1925 the settlement of the plot in question was resolved in between two parties in a proceeding before the Court of learned MunsifI, Purulia and the title over the said land in favour of Late Kirti Chandra Ghoshal was made absolute. He further submits that the said Kirti Chandra Ghoshal died in the year 1970 and his sons Bhupen Ghoshal died in the year 1977 and Harendra Nath Ghoshal died in the year 1982 and thereafter Jageshwar Ghoshal and daughter Rewa Rani Ghoshal died in march, 1997. The petitioner is the son of Bhupen Ghoshal. It is further stated that a Title Suit No. 57/18 of 1969/1974 was instituted by Harendra Nath Ghoshal and others Vs. Tara Chandra Taparia in the court of Munsif of Baghmara at Dhanbad wherein certain reliefs were claimed in respect of Khas possession of the land described in schedule being the same property. The said suit was decreed by learned Munsif on 31.03.1975 in favour of the plaintiff declaring his Khas possession of Schedule D Lands described therein and the defendant was directed to remove the structure and put the plaintiffs in possession. Thereafter, the Title Appeal No. 29 of 1975 was filed by Tara Chandra Taparia in the court of 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, which was dismissed on 8th February, 1977. Thereafter, Miscellaneous Case no. 8 of 1977 was filed for restoration of the said Title Appeal, which was also dismissed on 14th July, 1977 by 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dhanbad. The petitioner by relying upon the averments made in Annexures to the writ petition, submits that the rent receipts were issued by the Circle Officer, Chas up to the year 198687 for an area of 9 acres 20 decimals for the said plot no. 7778, Khata no. 752. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that one Mrs. Rewa Rani Ghoshal daughter of Late Kirti Chandra Ghoshal filed an application on 17th March, 1994 before the District Forest Officer, Dhanbad stating that her ancestors in the year 1957 had produced the entire documents relating to the acquisition of land bearing Khata no. 752, Plot no. 7788 and she claimed compensation for acquisition of the said land. Thereafter the said application was followed in the year 1997 and certain correspondence also took place between District Forest Officer, Dhanbad and the Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad.
(2.) ON the basis of the aforesaid averments, it is submitted that the petitioner being heir of late Kirti Chandra Ghoshal, was entitled to compensation for acquisition of the land in the year 1957 by the Forest Department. The respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit, in which they have stated that the claim of the petitioner is not sustainable in law as well on facts. It has been stated by the respondents that the Plot no. 7788, Khata no. 752 was recorded in the old revenue records as well as in old survey settlement records as " Jungle Jhari" which was duly notified as "Private Protected Forest" under Section 14(2) of the Bihar Private Forest Act, 1947 vide Notification No. 4466VI R dated 28.4.1947. They have also referred to the provisions of Section 71 of the Bihar Private Forest Act, 1947 relating to Bar of suits and other proceedings. They have further referred to the provisions of Section 64 of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, whereunder for any conversion of land into Korkar the Deputy Commissioner's permission is required. The respondents have relied upon the Notification dated 24.5.1958 (AnnexureA) and submitted that the said land of Plot no. 7788 of Khata no. 752 situated in Mouza Chas P.S. Chas (P.S.No. 30) was duly notified protected forest land and it is further stated that out of total area 31.85 acre of the same plot, 16.50 acre land was transferred to the Directorate of Project Land and Rehabilitation, Dhanbad on 6.4.1965 (AnnexureB). The respondents have stated that the representation of the petitioner through M.L.A has been replied vide letter no. 1140 dated 27.5.1997. It is further stated on their behalf that after the notification the petitioner's ancestors was asked to appear to establish his claim before the Forest Settlement Officer but he failed to produce the satisfactory document in their support and finally after concluding the entire settlement procedure the land was demarcated and notified as protected forest land. The respondents further stated that the last survey settlement operations 191825, the nature of the land has been shown as "Gair Abad Malik Khata" in the Khatian which means that the land is owned by the Government and thereafter it was notified as Private Protected Forest Land. The respondents have further submitted that even after the coming into force of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, all the lands and property held by the intermediary tenure holders got vested into the State. It has been further submitted that even the unbroken and unreclaimed portion of jungle Plot no. 7788m which was the property of the landlord also got vested into the State by virtue of said Act and there are provisions under the Act of 1950 for claiming compensation in required format before the Collector which they failed to comply. The claim of the petitioner, therefore, for compensation is not at all maintainable. Learned counsel while refuting that contention of the petitioner stated that assessment and payment of rent has got no legal value in a demarcated forest area as per the Government of Bihar, Revenue Department, Patna dated 18.2.1960 (AnnexureE). The said land stood transferred to Directorate of Project Land and Rehabilitation, Dhanbad and no question of payment of compensation arise at all. The petitioner has filed his reply reiterating the contention made in the writ petition claiming that the petitioner is the owner of the land in question and the settlement of the plot in question was resolved in between two parties as already stated and is entitled to compensation. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is apparent that the land in question was declared as Private Protected Forest Land by notification issued in the year 1947 and after coming into force all the lands and property held by the intermediary tenure holders got vested into the State and for making a claim necessary formalities were also required to be completed within a specified time limit. It further appears that Kirti Chandra Ghoshal was given opportunity to establish his claim relating to the aforesaid land, however, he failed to produce any document or material in support of the same and the proceedings achieved finality at the relevant point of time in the year 1958. From the averments made in the writ petition, it appears that for the first time one Mrs. Rewa Rani Ghoshal started making claim for compensation in respect of the land in the year 1994, which was also replied by the Forest Department. It further appears that the proceedings for declaration of the aforesaid land as forest land have culminated long ago in the year 1958 by following procedure under the law and has reached a finality. At this stage after almost 50 years, it is grossly delayed to allow the petitioner to agitate the claim for compensation by seeking such relief through this writ application. In this context, it is proper to refer to a recent judgment delivered in the case of Delhi Administration and othersVs. Kaushilya Thakur and another reported in JT 2012(4) 84, wherein such belated case for claim in matters relating to land acquisition had been disapproved by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
(3.) I find no merit in the writ petition and otherwise also the relief claimed has been raised at a highly belated stage after almost 50 years. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed.;