Jharkhand HC asks Bokaro land losers to prove title before seeking compensation
SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA Ranchi, July 14: The Jharkhand High Court has refused to direct payment of compensation to a group of alleged…
SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA
Ranchi, July 14: The Jharkhand High Court has refused to direct payment of compensation to a group of alleged land losers claiming that their land was used for the Bokaro Steel Plant without acquisition, holding that they must first establish their ownership before seeking compensation.
Justice Ananda Sen disposed of the writ petition filed by four petitioners from Bokaro district, observing that disputed questions of title cannot be decided in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution and must instead be adjudicated by a competent civil court.
Petitioners Allege Land Used Without Acquisition
The petitioners contended that while large tracts of land were acquired for the establishment of the Bokaro Steel Plant in the 1950s and 1960s, about 561 acres in Mouza Kanari were allegedly occupied by constructing a boundary wall without legal acquisition or payment of compensation.
They claimed a committee constituted by the state government had found them to be genuine land losers entitled to compensation, but despite repeated representations, neither the state authorities nor the Bokaro Steel Plant had compensated them.
State Says Land Is Government Property
Opposing the petition, the state government maintained that the disputed land was recorded as gairmazarua khas (government land) in the cadastral survey and had been transferred to the Bokaro Steel Plant in 1968 without compensation because it belonged to the government.
The state further argued that the petitioners failed to produce any valid documents proving ownership or settlement of the land by the erstwhile zamindar. It also pointed out that no land acquisition award had been made in favour of the petitioners or their ancestors.
SAIL Questions Delay, Ownership Claim
The Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), which operates the Bokaro Steel Plant, submitted that land acquisition had been carried out by the state government and compensation, wherever payable, was the state’s responsibility.
SAIL also argued that the petition had been filed decades after the land acquisition process and that the petitioners had failed to establish their status as raiyats (recorded landholders).
Rent Receipts Not Proof of Title, Says Court
The High Court observed that although some petitioners had produced rent receipts, such documents by themselves do not establish ownership.
Justice Sen noted that government records continued to classify the disputed land as gairmazarua khas, and there was no conclusive evidence showing that the land had ever been settled in favour of the petitioners or their ancestors.
“Rent receipts are not proof of title,” the Court observed while holding that compensation can be claimed only after establishing legal ownership of the land.
Civil Court Must Decide Ownership First
Holding that complex questions relating to ownership require detailed examination of documentary and oral evidence, the Court ruled that such issues cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings.
The Court directed the petitioners to approach the appropriate civil court to establish their right, title and interest over the disputed land.
It clarified that only after their title is declared by a competent court can the question of compensation arise, if the land is found to have been acquired or utilised by the authorities.
