Jharkhand High Court: Rent Receipts and Possession Insufficient for Compensation Claims in Coal Acquisition Without Proof of Title
Case Brief: Saraswati Devi & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. L.P.A. No. 365 of 2024
Facts
In the present case, the appellants claimed compensation and rehabilitation benefits, including employment, in respect of a land acquired for the Tetaria Kharh Coal Project. As per them, the land had been settled in favour of their predecessor by the ex-landlord through a Hukumnama, and after vesting, rent receipts were issued recognising raiyati status.
When acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, the authorities rejected the appellants’ claim on the ground that the land was recorded as ‘Gairmajarua Malik’ in the record of rights and that no valid document of title had been produced. The writ petition challenging denial of compensation was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that serious disputed questions of title and possession were involved, which could not be decided in writ jurisdiction. The present appeal challenged that order.
Legal Issues
(i) Whether compensation and rehabilitation benefits could be granted in writ jurisdiction on the basis of possession and revenue records in the absence of proof of title?
(ii) Whether the learned Single Judge erred in relegating the appellants to the remedy of a civil suit?
Legal Reasoning
The Division Bench reiterated that rent receipts and revenue entries are fiscal documents and do not confer title. Title disputes must be adjudicated by a competent civil court and cannot ordinarily be decided under Article 226.
The Court noted that the appellants had admitted the absence of title documents and sought to rely on long possession and a government circular, which had not been pleaded before the writ court. Raising such a new ground in an intra-court appeal was impermissible.
Given the disputed nature of possession and title, the Court held that the learned Single Judge had rightly declined to exercise writ jurisdiction.
Holding
The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed. The Court affirmed that no compensation or rehabilitation benefits could be directed in writ proceedings in the absence of proof of title and left the appellants free to pursue their remedies before the competent civil court.
