Sohrai Oraon and Others vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

Aparesh Kumar Singh

Heard Learned Counsel for the parties. This Review Petition has been filed for reviewing the orders dated 26th April 2011 and 29th April 2011 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2356 of 2009.

Learned Counsel for the State submitted that the above orders were obtained by consent of the petitioners themselves.

Learned Counsel for the writ petitioners submitted that Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulsum R. Nadiadwala Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, , held that non compliance of all the mandatory requirements in the Land Acquisition Proceedings, renders the entire land acquisition proceeding null and void. It is submitted that the land acquisition proceedings are illegal in this case. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners obtained the information under the Right to Information Act and that information is annexed as Annexure-3.

There is no reason to review the order, nor any of the contentions is within the scope of Order 47 CPC. Be that as it may be, so far as the contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners that this land acquisition proceeding is illegal is concerned, this issue has already been considered in another public interest litigation by this Court. It has already been taken note that land was acquired in 1957-58 and in the said litigation, I.A. No. 1558 of 2012 in W.P.(PIL) No. 2347 of 2012 was filed in which the land acquisition proceeding was sought to be challenged and that I.A. has been rejected and against which, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has already dismissed the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 18622 of 2012 after observing that land acquisition has taken place in 1957-58, therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by this Court dated 16th May 2011 in I.A. No. 1558/2012 filed in W.P. (PIL) No. 2347 of 2012. Be that as it may, we have merely observed about the land acquisition proceedings because of the reason that, according to the Learned Counsel for the petitioners, Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulsum R. Nadiadwala (Supra) held that land acquisition proceedings if do not comply with the mandatory requirements, then the land acquisition proceeding is illegal. Here in this case, we may reiterate that in this Review Petition, petitioners cannot raise this ground nor the petitioners or any other persons can challenge the land acquisition proceedings after the delay of more than 50 years. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the delay is not fatal in this challenge to the land acquisition proceeding and relied upon the judgment in the case of M/s Royal Orchid Hotels Limited and another vs. G. Jayaram Reddy and others reported in 2011(3) G.L.H 425.

We have already observed that this is review petition and not a writ petition challenging the land acquisition proceedings of the year 1957-58 and we are not hearing to the challenge to the land acquisition proceeding in this review petition. We have observed that the petitioners want to raise this ground about the legality of the land acquisition proceeding in the review petition, whereas the impugned order is consent order and when this consent order was obtained there was no challenge to the land acquisition proceeding. The land acquisition proceeding was challenged and have already been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Public Interest Litigation and objection has been already rejected and thereafter, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 18622 of 2012 held that the land acquisition proceedings of 1957-58 cannot be challenged, therefore, the said judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court has no application to the facts of this case. In view of the above reason, this Review Petition is dismissed.