Abhay Kumar Shroff vs State Of Jharkhand

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

C.M.P. No. 154 of 2025 has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 31.07.2024 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Dumka in Civil Misc. Case No. 12 of 2022/ 06 of 2022 arising out of L.A. Case No. 81 of 2017.

Land Acquisition Case No. 81 of 2017 was registered on the basis of reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer, Deoghar vide Letter No. 344 Bhu Au dated 30.09.2015 in connection with Land Acquisition Case No. 49 of 2012-13. The said case was with respect to 12.52 acres of land acquired for extension of Deoghar Airport for which an award of Rs.1,06,62,910/- was passed in favour of the petitioners.

The said reference culminated in an award dated 20.07.2022. In pursuance of the said award, Rs.74,80,724/- as solatium has been paid to the petitioners.

The petitioners further filed a review in Land Acquisition Case No. 81 of 2017 under Section 60 (1)(f) of the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short Act, 2013) for reviewing the earlier dated 20.07.2022 seeking interest on the compensation amount.

The said review petition has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Dumka had no jurisdiction to entertain the reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short Act, 1984) and only Sub-judge-II, Deoghar could have heard and disposed of the matter. It was noted by the learned Court that the Act, 2013 came into force from 01.01.2014. Further, under Section 24 of the Act, 2013, the acquisition proceeding of the Act, 1894 shall not be deemed to have lapsed and if the award had been made under Section 11 of the 1894 Act, proceeding would continue. Reliance in this regard is placed on (2020) 8 SCC 129.

C.M.P. No. 153 of 2025 has been filed against the order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Dumka, whereby and whereunder, prayer for release of the award and solatium amount in Land Acquisition Case No. 84 of 2017 has been rejected.

The aforesaid land acquisition case was initiated on reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer on 30.09.2015 in connection with Land Acquisition Case No. 49 of 2012-13 for acquisition of 12.52 acres of land for extension of Deoghar Airport. The said case was disposed of by award dated 20.07.2022 in favour of the petitioners.

Opposite party nos. 4 to 13 preferred F.A. No. 79 of 2022 against the award on the ground that the Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Dumka had no jurisdiction to pass the award, rather the jurisdiction was with Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Deoghar in terms of Section 18 of the Act, 1894.

During pendency of first appeal, earlier the stay to release of amount was ordered which was vacated vide order dated 16.05.2023 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in F.A. No. 79 of 2022.

After the said order of stay was vacated, the petitioners moved the Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Dumka for release of the amount which has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the Act, 1894 will be applicable under which Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Dumka had no jurisdiction to hear the reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer.

Heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides.

The question naturally arises, when the first appeal is pending against the award whether instant petition under Article 227 will be maintainable before this Court against the award?

This Court is of the view that the crux of the matter revolves on the question whether the Act, 2013 or the Act, 1894 will be applicable. If it is accepted that the Act, 2013 will be applicable, there cannot be any doubt regarding the jurisdiction of the Dumka Court. However, if the Act, 1894 is applicable, then the question will arise whether the award is vitiated or not for want of jurisdiction by the Court at Dumka.

Since the First Appellate Court in F.A. No. 79 of 2022 is in seisin with the matter, this Court is of the view that C.M.P. No. 154 of 2025 will not be maintainable as the petitioners have efficacious remedy of appeal. The main grievance of the petitioner is the denial of interest on the awarded amount and the solatium. It has been rightly argued by learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State that Section 34 (3) of the CPC is emphatic on the point that where the interest has not been allowed, it will amount to refusal. Refusal of such a relief can be challenged in an appeal and not in a civil miscellaneous petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

This C.M.P. No. 154 of 2025 is accordingly, disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to work out appropriate legal remedy. I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

So far as C.M.P. No. 153 of 2025 is concerned, since F.A. No. 79 of 2022 has already been filed and is pending before this Court and the petitioners appear to be aggrieved by the order passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Dumka, refusing to release the amount, therefore, the appropriate forum will be the First Appellate Court and not in the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

C.M.P. No. 153 of 2025 is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to work out an appropriate legal remedy.

Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.