AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
The instant Cont. (Civil) case has been filed for non-compliance of the order dated 21.04.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.4617 of 2022 wherein Respondent No.3 [The Special Land Acquisition Officer, North Koyal Project, Medininagar, At + PS & PO- Medininagar, District- Palamau.] was directed to pass an appropriate order on the objection dated 17.01.2019 within a period of three months from the date of the said order.
Petitioner claims compensation for the land appertaining to Old Khata No.114/ New Khata No.276, Old Plot No.32/ New Plot No.94, measuring area of 1.08 acres acquired for Construction of Security Embankment, North Koyal Project, Medininagar, Palamau.
The claim of title based upon the Registered Batwaranama of the Year, 1948.
A show-cause has been filed on behalf of the Opp. Party No.2 stating therein that the order under contempt has been complied with wherein a speaking order has been passed on 26.07.2025 by the Opp. Party No.2 [The Special Land Acquisition Officer, North Koyal Project, Medininagar, At + PS & PO- Medininagar, District- Palamau.].
The case of the petitioner for compensation was not referred to by the Opp. Party No.2 for the reason that in the revisional record of rights of the Year, 2009, his name does not figure in the record of rights. It was also noted that as per the Land Acquisition Rules, the reference is to be made on the basis of the recent survey record and if there was any error, it was open to the parties for correction of the error.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Opp. Party No.2- The Special Land Acquisition Officer has no authority to examine the title of the person claiming compensation. The competent authority is the competent Civil Court to which the matter is to be referred under Section 76 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (RFCTLARR) Act, 2013.
It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the order passed by this Court, Respondent No.3 was required to refer the case under Section 76 of the said Act, 2013 before the competent authority for determination of title and not to reject the same at the threshold. Reliance is placed on 2003(3) SCC 128 at Paras-25 onwards [Sharda Devi vs. State of Bihar & Anr.].
Learned SC I for the State has submitted that acquisition of land, in question, has been done on the basis of land acquired as per the revisional survey record of rights.
Having heard the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, there cannot be any quarrel with the legal proposition canvassed on behalf of the petitioner that the Opp. Party No.2 [The Special Land Acquisition Officer, North Koyal Project, Medininagar, At + PS & PO- Medininagar, District- Palamau.] cannot examine the title and the matter is to be referred when there is prima-facie issue of title raised on behalf of the parties.
However, one or the other objection cannot be referred for adjudication of title unless there is some material in support of the claim of title of possession in favour of the petitioner. Admittedly, name of the petitioner does not figure in the revisional survey records of rights and aggrieved by the said order, he has preferred Case No.7194 of 2009 before the Court of Settlement Officer, Medininagar, Palamau under Section 87 (2) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act.
Further in view of the ratio laid down by the Full Bench of Patna High Court in Paritosh Maity vs. Ghasiram Maity [AIR 1985 Patna 354], the petitioner has legal remedy to file a title Suit and the same has not been done.
12.In absence of any document of possession post the Year, 2009, can it be said that the learned Special Land Acquisition Officer, Medininagar, Palamau (O.P. No.2) erred in not referring the case under Section 76 of the said Act, 2013?
13.This Court is of the view that the order under Contempt has been complied with and the petitioner has legal remedy for correction in the Revisional Survey Records of Rights and/ or file a title Suit before the Civil Court having competent jurisdiction.
The contempt proceeding is accordingly dropped.
In view of the fact that Case No.7194 of 2009 pending in the Court of Settlement Officer, Medininagar, Palamau has not been disposed of, therefore, the Settlement Officer, Medininagar, Palamau, is directed to conclude the hearing of the said case within six months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. However, the petitioner to appear before the Settlement Officer, within two weeks from today along with a copy of this order.