The Jharkhand High Court came down heavily on a Project Director of the NHAI in a land compensation case from Jharkhand’s Hazaribagh, questioning under what authority the IAS officer had objected to compensation.
During a hearing last week, Justice Rajesh Kumar told the official, “One law applies across the whole country, but is a separate law running in Jharkhand? Who are you to object when the power to recognise raiyati rights rests with the State and the Deputy Commissioner? If the State has recognised someone as a raiyat, who are you to say otherwise? Do you want commission in each and every case?”
“Have such objections ever been raised anywhere else in India? Bring us an example, or we will order an inquiry. If not a single objection has been raised across the country, then why here in Jharkhand? Are you here only for commission? If you cannot comply, then I will order an FIR against you,” the judge said, warning the officer not to “make a mockery” of the proceedings.
The case relates to a land acquisition dispute involving the National Highway Authority of India.
The land in question was originally allotted by the State Government in 1975 to a landless Scheduled Caste family under its settlement policy. Settlement documents, mutation records, and rent receipts were issued in the name of the awardee, and he had been cultivating the land for decades.
In 2015, during the widening of National Highway 33, the government acquired this land. Accordingly, an award for compensation was prepared in 2016. The District Land Acquisition Officer requested NHAI to deposit the required amount so that compensation could be paid to the landowner.
However, NHAI raised an objection, claiming that the government land had been transferred to the family free of cost, and, therefore, no compensation was payable.
Story continues below this ad
The petitioner’s counsel, Awnish Shankar, argued that this objection was not raised during the acquisition proceedings or at the time of notification. “The Gazette Notification clearly mentioned the names of the recorded tenants (raiyats) who had been settled on the land by the government. Under government policy, once land is settled in someone’s name, they are treated as landowners for acquisition purposes and are entitled to compensation like any other raiyat,” he said.
The court, during the hearing on August 19, noted with displeasure that the NHAI had not raised this objection at the proper stage and was now withholding payment for nearly nine years despite the award being passed in 2016. The judge reprimanded the NHAI Project Director and directed that a decision must be taken immediately.
Shankar emphasised that this was a case of legitimate entitlement – landowners who had government-settled land could not be denied compensation in compulsory acquisition merely because the land once belonged to the State.
An NHAI official, however, explained that the confusion arose because the land was initially notified as government land. “The revenue authority had handed it over free of cost in 2015. It was only later, in 2020, that a claimant came forward, saying the land had been settled in his name. At that time, our records did not reflect this. Once it was clarified in 2023, we agreed to release the award,” the official claimed.
Story continues below this ad
The official added that the matter was complicated by frequent transfers of project directors. “By August 2023, it came to our notice again, and we assured the court that the award would be disbursed. The process has already been approved, and compensation is now being released,” the official claimed.
The court has listed the matter for further hearing on September 2.
