1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the order dated 22.02.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) N. 2289 of 2012 dismissing the writ petition giving liberty to the appellants to approach the Civil Court to establish their title, ownership and possession upon the property in the proper way.
2. Case of the appellants is that the ex-landlord, Dulhin Sri Choubeni Kunwar Padama had settled 3.32 acres of land of Kaitha Mauza, recorded as Gair Mazarua Khas, under Khata No. 84, Plot No. 171 in favour of Sikhu Mahto through Hukumnama in the year 1924-25. The rent was assessed and paid to the ex-landlord from 1924-25. Further case of the appellant is that after coming into force of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, rent was assessed in the name of Shikhu Mahto and rent had been paid to the Government of Bihar and after the death of said Shikhu Mahto, the appellants came in possession of land and they were paying rent to the State Government till 1984. The appellants relies upon Annexure 6 to show that they were paying rent till 1984. Further case of the appellant is that one notice was issued on 7.06.2010 for acquisition of land situated in various plots including Plot No. 171 under Khata No. 84 (Annexure 4) for construction of Four Lane N.H.-33.
3. According to the appellants, they filed several representations before the 4th respondent for payment of compensation of the land but inspite of number of representations no action had been taken and no compensation was paid to them. Stating that the appellant''s representation for payment of compensation was not considered, the appellants have filed the Writ Petition being W.P. (C) No. 2289 of 2012 seeking direction upon the respondents to issue rent receipts forthwith to the appellants in respect of area 3.32 acres of land under Khata No. 84, Plot No. 171 of village Kaitha, District-Ramgarh and also to direct the respondents to pay compensation in lieu of the land acquired by the respondents for construction of National Highway No. 33.
4. Upon consideration of the contentions raised by the parties, the learned Single Judge held that the land in question are shown as Gair Mazarua Khas and as such the appellants'' claim for payment of compensation is not sustainable. It is farther held that as the appellants have not produced any document to show their possession after 1984. However, while dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge granted liberty to the appellants to agitate the cause of action before the competent Court having civil jurisdiction, where such issues relating to title, ownership and possession of the appellants can be decided.
5. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the appellants have filed this Letters Patent Appeal.
6. Heard Mr. Ranjan Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants, Md. Shamim Akhtar, learned S.C. (L & C) for the State-respondent and learned counsel Ms. Sweety Topno for the National Highways.
7. Laying emphasis upon Annexure-6, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants had been paying rent for Plot No. 171 till 1984 and the grant of rent receipt was stopped by the authorities without any valid reason. It is further submitted that the appellants came in possession of Plot No. 171 by way of Hukumnama, which was settled in favour of ancestor of the appellants and they were in possession of the property and after vesting of Zamindari, the appellants'' ancestors and thereafter appellants paid rent to the Government and the appellants are entitled to receive the compensation as per the notification issued by Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand dated 14.05.2009.
8. Learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand Md. Shamim Akhtar submitted that the appellants have not produced any rent receipt to show that the land in question was in possession of the appellants. It was submitted that lands mentioned in Annexure 4 are government land and those lands were transferred to the National Highways Department for laying National Highway 33. It is further submitted that since lands were Gair Mazarua Khas land and in fact there was no acquisition proceeding, the appellants cannot claim any compensation.
9. Learned counsel for the National Highways, Ms. Sweety Topno, reiterated the submission of learned counsel for the State and submitted that notification issued by Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand dated 14.05.2009 is not applicable to the present case since the land was transferred to the National Highway for laying the road and the same is governed by The National Highways Act, 1956.
10. We have carefully considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the order of the learned Single Judge and also the materials available on record.
11. The appellants claim compensation mainly on two grounds; (i) that they have been in possession of Gair Mazarua Khas land of Khata No. 84, Plot No. 171, area 3.10 acres of village Kaitha in pursuance of Hukumnama of the year 1924-25 and for that they have been paying rent to the government and (ii) as per notification issued by Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand dated 14.05.2009, compensation is payable to all the occupants of Gair Mazarua Khas land, who is in possession of the land for more than 30 years.
12. Even though the appellants claim that they have been in possession of Khata No. 84, Plot No. 171 for more than 30 years prior to transfer of land to the National Highways in 2010, as per Annexure 6, the appellants seem to have produced the rent receipts only up-to 1984. The appellants have not produced any other document to show that they were in continuous possession of the Gair Mazarua Khas land of Khata No. 84, Plot No. 171 for more than 30 years prior to transfer of the land to the National Highways Department in 2010. According to the State-respondents the land is Gair Mazarua Khas land and the State-respondents are denying the possession and title of the appellants. In the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the State-respondents, genuineness of Annexure-6 is also disputed. The State-respondents also contended that the appellants are not fulfilling the conditions as envisaged in the notification issued by Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand dated 14.05.2009.
13. Placing reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of
14. By perusal of Section 3H(4) of The National Highways Act, 1956, it is seen that Section 3H(4) deals with only the question of apportionment of the amount or any part thereof when there is any dispute arises. Since in this case the ownership/possession of the appellants are denied, the appellants cannot contend that the matter ought to have been referred to the National Highways Authorities for deciding the matter under Section 3H(4) of the Act.
15. Since the State-respondent is disputing the title and possession of the appellants, it is for the appellants to establish their right/possession in the said land to enable them to claim compensation by adducing oral and documentary evidence. Since disputed questions of facts are involved regarding the right/possession of the appellants, the Writ Court cannot go into such disputed questions of fact. It is for the appellants to establish their right/possession over Plot No. 171 of Khata No. 84 in the Civil Court and then claim compensation.
16. In the facts and circumstances, the learned Single Judge has rightly directed the appellants to approach the competent Civil Court to establish their title, ownership and possession. This Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of granting liberty to the appellants to approach the Civil Court as directed by learned Single Judge. We make it clear that the Writ Court as well as this Court have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case.
