Jharkhand High Court
Chandan Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 April, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:10885
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 3538 of 2022
1. Chandan Singh, S/o Late Chaua Singh, aged about 75
years R/o Village Paharpur, P.O and P.S Kunda, Dist-Deoghar.
2. Gowardhan Singh, S/o Late Chaua Singh, aged about
63 years R/o Village Paharpur, P.O and P.S Kunda, Dist-
Deoghar.
3. Shiv Shankar Singh, S/o Gowardhan Singh aged about
23 years R/o Village Paharpur, P.O and P.S Kunda, Dist-
Deoghar.
4. Kailash Singh, S/o Gowardhan Singh aged about 23
years, R/o Village Paharpur, P.O and P.S Kunda, Dist-Deoghar.
.....Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, P.O Deoghar, P.S
Deoghar, Dist- Deoghar, Jharkhand.
3. District Land Acquisition Officer, Deoghar, P.O Deoghar,
P.S Deoghar, Dist- Deoghar.
4. Tulsi Singh, S/o Bano Singh, R/o Village-Santhal Bediya,
P.O-Punasi, P.S Jasidih, Dist-Deoghar, Jharkhand.
....Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
———
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate
Mr. Bajrang Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Parth Jalan, Adv
For the Respondents : Mrs. Bakshi Vibha, Advocate
———
CAV On: 13/02/2025 Delivered on:08/04/2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has prayed inter alia for issuance of a writ
of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 14.12.2009 along
with all consequential actions taken in L.A. Case No. 07/2015-
16 including the award dated 25.09.2019 prepared in favour of
the private respondent. The petitioner has further prayed for
1
2025:JHHC:10885
quashing of the order dated 15.09.2021, wherein authorities
have passed the order of recovery of the compensation towards
rehabilitation and resettlement; be quashed.
3. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the land situated within Mauza-Paharpur, Khata
No. 7 and within Mauza-Karnkol, Khata No. 24 (hereinafter
jointly referred to as the scheduled land) was owned by one
Bhim Singh. Bhim Singh died issueless. During his lifetime he
had not paid the rent with respect to the scheduled land.
After the demise of Bhim Singh, one Late Latoo Singh,
i.e. the ancestor of the Petitioners paid the arrears of the rent
and subsequently scheduled landswere settled in the name of
Latoo Singh. This settlement was confirmed in Settlement Case
No. 32 of 1933- 34 and Settlement Case No. 25 of 1933- 34 vide
order dated 9.6.1934 and 16.3.1934, respectively.
After the demise of Latoo Singh, the name of the
grandfather of the petitioners i.e. Chaua Singh was entered in
the khatiyan. It has been submitted that after the demise of
Latoo Singh, the revenue rent is being realised from his legal
heirs i.e. the Petitioners in the case at hand.
4. In the year 2015- 2016, the 3rd Respondent acquired the
scheduled land for the purpose of expansion of Deoghar
Airport. Notices dated 16.7.2016, were issued in the name of all
2
2025:JHHC:10885
4 (four) petitioners with respect to the scheduled land.
Pursuant to the notices, Petitioners appeared before 3rd
Respondent and produced all relevant documents including the
copy of the order(s) passed in settlement cases, khatiyan and
rent receipts. However, no compensation was released in favour
of the Petitioners despite Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 having
recognized the right of the Petitioners over the scheduled
property and the compensation towards rehabilitation and
resettlement was released in their favour by the Respondent
Nos. 1 to 3.
He further submits that after a lapse of more than 3
(three) years, 4th Respondent filed an application before the 3rd
Respondent, for award of compensation in his favour. It has
been contended by the Petitioner that the application was made
on basis of a forged genealogy table, wherein he claimed to be a
descendant of Bhim Singh. The 3rd Respondent, accepting the
version of 4th Respondent, to be gospel truth directed the
release of compensation amounting to ₹ 1,13,78,510/- (INR
One Crore Thirteen Lakhs Seventy-Eight Thousand Five
Hundred and Ten Only) in his favour vide order dated
25.9.2019.
As soon as the Petitioners came to known about the
same, an objection was raised by them under Section 64 of the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
3
2025:JHHC:10885
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2013) vide application dated
21.11.2019. However, instead of taking steps as per the
procedure prescribed under the Act, 2013 and making a
reference to the Authority; 3rd Respondent chose to adjudicate
the dispute vide its order dated 14.12.2019, wherein he
affirmed his previous order dated 25.9.2019 and passed the
order to release the compensation in favour of Respondent No.
4.
Being aggrieved, the Petitioners filed an application
before 2nd Respondent; however, the authority denied to
entertain their request and asked them to file the application
before 3rdRespondent. In the meantime, another notice
contained in memo no. 1499 (a) of 15.9.2021 was received by
the Petitioners wherein they were called upon to return the
compensation paid to them towards rehabilitation and
resettlement.
5. Learned counsel further submits that the action of
Respondent No. 1 to 3 is patently illegal and wholly without
jurisdiction. Once the award is prepared, 3rdRespondent is
functus officio and he had no authority to review the Award.
3rdRespondent exceeded his jurisdiction by reviewing the Award
and passing the impugned orders.
4
2025:JHHC:10885
6. Per contra, Mrs. Bakshi Vibha learned Counsel for the
State, has submitted that Bhim Singh died leaving behind his
daughter namely one Jaho Devi and the Petitioner have failed
to prove by way of any document of impeachable character that
Jaho Devi is not the daughter of Bhim Singh. She further relied
on revenue receipts to show that the scheduled property
belongs to the Respondent No. 4 and there is no illegality with
the orders as the order in favour of Respondent No. 4 has been
based on reports prepared by the competent revenue authority.
7. Learned Counsel for 4th Respondent argued that the land
forming subject matter of acquisition was owned by its
predecessor and she being the legal heir was entitled to
compensation. The Petitioner has made wrong submission
before the authority and thereby got the Award in its favour and
the compensation award has been wrongly paid to them. The
order impugned in the writ petition was passed after due
diligence and after consideration of material available on
record.
In response, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has
submitted that the onus to prove a particular fact is with the
person asserting such fact and as such the Respondent No. 4
has to show thathe is the heir of Bhim Singh. He has relied
upon Annexure-2 of the writ petition (i.e. the order passed by
the Sub-Divisional Officer in Settlement Case No. 32 of 1933-
5
2025:JHHC:10885
34) to show that Bhim Singh had died without any legal heir. It
is further submitted that even otherwise, the Respondents have
not denied the fact that the land was settled in the favour of the
ancestor of the Petitioners after the death of Bhim Singh and as
such even if Respondent No. 4 is accepted to be the legal heir of
Bhim Singh through her daughter, he cannot claim any right,
title and interest over the land in question as the orders passed
in the settlement cases have attained finality.
8. Considering the aforesaid submission, the following
issues are framed which need to be answered for the purpose of
adjudicating the lis in the instant writ petition:-
Whether the 2nd Respondent can review the award, once
the same is prepared?
Whether the 2nd Respondent is duty bound to make
reference of dispute pertaining to inter-se dispute before
the authority under Section 64 of the Act, 2013 ?
9. This Court has considered the pleadings and
submissions of the rival parties and perused relevant
documents annexed with the respective affidavits. The issued
are discussed as under:-
The first issue is with respect to the power of the
Collector to review the award.
6
2025:JHHC:10885
The order dated 09.06.1934 passed in settlement case
no. 32 of 1933-34 attached as Annexure-2 to the writ petition
and order dated 16.3.1934 passed in settlement case no. 25 of
1933-34 attached as Annexure-3 to this writ petition records a
finding that Bhim Singh died without any issue and the
scheduled land was settled in the favour of the Latoo Singh (@
Latu Singh). The validity and the genuineness of this order has
attained finality and has not been repudiated by the
Respondent-State. Another important fact, which is non
controversia is that compensation towards rehabilitation and
resettlement was released in the favour of the Petitioners.
10. Further, the compensation towards rehabilitation and
resettlement is released in the favour of the affected families in
terms of Section 31 of the Right To Fair Compensation And
Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And
Resettlement Act, 2013, the relevant portion of which is
reproduced as below:-
The Collector shall pass Rehabilitation and Resettlement Awards for
each affected family in terms of the entitlements provided in the
Second Schedule.
….
11. A bare perusal of the above provision will show that
compensation towards rehabilitation and resettlement is
released on the favour of an affected person after the collector
pass an “Award” to such effect. The fact that the amount was
7
2025:JHHC:10885
released in favour of the Petitioners show that an Award had
been prepared in favour of the Petitioners by the State-
Respondents. However, upon receipt of an application from
4thRespondent, an order dated 25.9.2019 was passed by
3rdRespondent for the release of compensation in favour of 4th
Respondent.
12. This Court fails to understand as to how an Award
towards rehabilitation and resettlement can be passed in favour
of one person and the Award be prepared for payment of
compensation of land be prepared in favour of a different
person all together. This shows that the order dated 25.9.2019
is nothing but an attempt on part of the Respondent authorities
to review the Award prepared in favour of the Petitioner.
13. Section 33 of the Right To Fair Compensation And
Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And
Resettlement Act, 2013, pertains to the scope of the corrections,
which can be made by the collector, the same is reproduced as
under:-
The Collector may at any time, but not later than six months from
the date of award or where he has been required under the
provisions of this Act to make a reference to the Authority under
section 64, before the making of such reference, by order, correct
any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in either of the awards or
errors arising therein either on his own motion or on the application
of any person interested or local authority:
Provided that no correction which is likely to affect prejudicially any
person shall be made unless such person has been given a
reasonable opportunity of making representation in the matter.
The Collector shall give immediate notice of any correction made in
the award so corrected to all the persons interested.
….
8
2025:JHHC:10885
14. The provision of law quoted above makes it crystal clear
that the scope of ‘correction’ is limited to making clerical or
arithmetic changes in the award and cannot make material
changes such as alter the particulars of the Awardee in exercise
to its power thereof. The same would amount of ‘review’ of the
Award.
At this stage it is pertinent to mention here that the
power of ‘review’ is not an inherent power but has to be derived
from the statute and has to be exercised as per the statutory
provisions. The judgement rendered in the case of Hukam
Chand Vs. Union of India and Ors (2024: HHC:12412)has
held that once an Award has been prepared, the collector
become functus officio and has no power to review/modify the
Award except has under Section 33 of the Act, 2013.
15. Accordingly, this Court holds that the impugned order
dated 25.9.2019 is colorable exercise of power by the authority,
exceeding its jurisdiction in so far as it has reviewed the Award.
Further, the order dated 15.9.2021, whereby the authorities
have issued demand notice to the Petitioner for recovery of the
awarded amount is bad in the eye of law being consequential to
the order dated 25.9.2019.
16. Now coming to the second issue, which pertains to the
powers under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And
9
2025:JHHC:10885
Resettlement Act, 2013.
17. Both the parties have relied upon documents to show
their right, title and interest over the scheduled land. This
dispute is essentially with respect to the ‘the person to whom
the compensation is payable’. Whenever a dispute of such
nature is raised, it is the duty of the collector to make a
reference to the competent ‘authority’ in terms of Section 64 of
the Act, 2013. As Section 64 of the Act, 2013 requires the
collector to make such reference; the collector himself is
divested of the authority to adjudicate such dispute. Relevant
portion of Section 64 of the Right To Fair Compensation And
Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And
Resettlement Act, 2013 is reproduced as under for ready
reference:-
Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by
written application to the Collector, require that the matter be
referred by the Collector for the determination of the Authority, as
the case may be, whether his objection be to the measurement of the
land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is
payable, the rights of Rehabilitation and Resettlement under
Chapters V and VI or the apportionment of the compensation among
the persons interested….
18. The record transpires that vide Annexure- 8 and 11
dated 25.112019 and 24.7.2021, the Petitioners made
application under Section 64 of the Act, 2013 for making
reference before the competent authority for adjudication of the
dispute between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 4.
19. The object of making such reference is that payment to
10
2025:JHHC:10885
whom the compensation is payable involves complicated
question of fact and accordingly such issues cannot be
adjudicated in a summary manner and requires taking
evidence. The Respondent authorities could not have
adjudicated the question pertaining to whom the compensation
is payable and was duty bound to make reference to the
competent authority. The second issue is answered accordingly.
20. In light of the above discussion, this Court holds that:-
(i) The order dated 25.9.2019 amounts to review of the
Award. The Respondent authority have no jurisdiction to
review an award and as such the same is quashed.
(ii) The order dated 14.12.2019 amounts to adjudication
of complicated questions of facts pertaining to right, title
and interest of the Petitioner and the 4thRespondent.
Such adjudication cannot be done by the Respondent-
authorities and whenever such dispute arises the
Collector is bound to make reference to the authority in
terms of Section 64 of the Act, 2013. Accordingly, it is
quashed and set-aside.
21. As the order dated 15.9.2021 is a consequence of the
order(s) dated 25.9.2019 and 14.12.2019, the same stands
quashed.
22. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the
right, title and interest of the parties. The aggrieved party is at
11
2025:JHHC:10885
liberty to approach the competent authority as is prescribed
under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
23. Consequently, the instant writ petition is allowed with
the aforesaid observation. All pending interlocutory application,
if any, stand closed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Amardeep/
A.F.R.
12
[ad_1]
Source link