Shankar Bhandari vs State of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard Mr. Sudarshan Srivasta assisted by Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sumeet Gadodia assisted by Mr. Anjani Nandan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and Mr. Ajay Shankar, learned A.C to G.P-1, for the respondents-State.

Petitioner has preferred this writ petition for direction to the respondents to make payment of compensation of the land situated at Nirsa, Thana Nirsa, Mauza Pandra No. 95, Khata No. 366, Plot No. 1506 and 1529 measuring 06 decimal, at Nirsa, Dhanbad.

Mr. Sudarshan Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that respondent No.6 sold the land in question vide registered sale deed No. 4015/3769 dated 02.04.2008. The said registered sale deed brought on record as Annexure-1 to this writ petition. He further submits that the land in question was acquired by the department concerned in which the notices were issued to the petitioner to receive the compensation amount which was subsequently paid, and after that a notice was issued by the Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad vide order dated 03.11.2012 to the petitioner to the effect that it has been found that you have fraudulently withdrawn the amount and come forward with your documents otherwise an F.I.R shall be lodged against the petitioner. Pursuant thereto petitioner deposited the amount in question vide Annexure-4.

Mr. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that necessary documents the petitioner has already produced before the Land Acquisition Officer and in that view of the matter the Land Acquisition Officer can decide the claim of the petitioner.

Per Contra, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner by referring sale deed which has been brought on record as Annexure-1 and submits that the sale deed of Khata No. is shown as 366 plot No. 1506, 1529 whereas the petitioner has withdrawn the money with regard to Khata No. 69 Plot No. 1532 which shows that the petitioner has fraudulently withdrawn the amount and when the notice was issued by the concern department and for avoiding F.I.R such amount was deposited by the petitioner to the concerned department. He further submits that respondent No.4 has preferred a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(C) No. 5242 of 2017 for direction upon the respondent to take steps for identifying the rightful owners of the land acquired for railway line project of the respondent No.4 and for making rectification in the Awards to make payment of consequential compensation to actually affected persons within reasonable time under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He further submits that Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court disposed of the aforesaid writ petition with a direction to the State Government to find as to whether the award in question pursuant to land has been passed and whether the concerned person fraudulently withdrawn the amount in question or not? He further submits that against the order of the Single Judge, the present petitioner has preferred a L.P.A. No. 356 of 2018 wherein he has suppressed the fact of this writ petition. He further submits that the claim of the petitioner is not tenable in view of the above facts.

In view of the above facts and considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and particularly examining the sale deed which has been brought on record as Annexure-1 of this writ petition and the notice with regard to the land in question on which the amount in question was withdrawn by the petitioner are different. Thus the claim of the petitioner is not acceptable by this Court and in that view of the matter no relief can be extended to the petitioner in this writ petition. Accordingly this writ petition stands dismissed.

However as already directed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5242 of 2017, in compliance of that direction of the Co-ordinate Bench in that writ petition if the claim of the petitioner are found to be genuine by the authority concerned they will take a decision in accordance with the law.