What is gmk land?

Rayati land refers to privately owned land whereas Gair Majurwa Khaas (GMK) land refers to nonagricultural land owned by the government that has been transferred to the villagers. FOREST LAND TO BE ACQUIRED). these GMK land Jungle Jhari has been settled and converted in to tenancy land. Section 9(1) of CBA Act ] instead of by inheritance, then attested photocopy of. (B) For GMK Settled Land (CTL).

Source: www.99acres.com

Pramath Patnaik, J.:— In the instant writ application, the petitioners have inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to give employment against the acquisition of their ancestral/raiyati land measuring about 18.27 acres as per the scheme framed by the C.C.L and for direction upon the respondent for appropriate compensation in terms of money at the rate of then existing market value.

2. The factual matrix, as has been depicted in the writ application in a nut shell is that for acquisition of land, a land acquisition case bearing No. 24/1985-86 was filed by the respondent company namely C.C.L to acquire 59.45 acres of raiyati land from 48 raiyats of village Bachra. A notification no. D.L.A Haz-42/06-676 dated 02.04.1987 was published and subsequently published in Hazaribagh District Gazette on 16.04.1987 as per annexure-1 to the writ petition. It has been submitted that at village Bachra, the ancestral land belonging to the petitioners, in the name of their grandfather namely, Ritu Mahto, measuring a total area of 8.27 acres and also 10 acres of Khutkatti raiyati lands belonging to the petitioners were also marked by the respondent company to be acquired for its purposes. Subsequently, notices were issued to all raiyats/interested parties including the grandfather of the petitioners to appear with all necessary documents of the land on 24.04.1990 After completion of the legal formalities, the grandfather of the petitioners was informed that as against the acquisition of 8.27 acres of land, Rs. 1,19,944.80 has been decided as compensation to be paid to him as indicated in the notice dated 15.01.1991 vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Since the valuation of the lands belonging to the petitioners was very low, the grandfather of the petitioners filed an objection in the aforesaid land acquisition case giving full details of commercial value of the land and also requesting the respondents for enhancement of compensation as per the market value of the land. The objection raised by the grandfather of the petitioners fell on the deaf ears and compensation amount was accepted by the grandfather of the petitioner with demur on 07.05.1991 and subsequently after due verification and assessment a sum of Rs. 14,82,484.20 was ordered to be paid to the grandfather of the petitioners, which appears by an observation of the order of award dated 17.06.1992 in L.A No. 24/1985-86 passed by the Land Acquisition Judge, Hazaribagh, as evident from Annexure-5 to the writ petition. It has further been submitted that so far as acquisition of 10 acres of Khutkatti land belonging to grandfather of the petitioners, no compensation were paid to him. After payment of compensation, the father and mother of the petitioners namely Budhan Mahto and Sohabatia Devi applied for the jobs and employment was only given to Budhan Mahto and the case of Sohabatia Devi was not considered. After getting employment, the father of the petitioners, Budhan Mahto started doing work in the respondent company. During his employment, he came to learn that in large number of cases against acquisition of less land than the petitioners, services to many members of a raiyat has been given as mentioned in para 15 of the writ petition. After getting such information the father of the petitioners submitted representation on 15.09.2003 before the Chief General Manager, Piparwar Area, C.C.L, Hazaribagh for employment of three sons, namely petitioners 1 to 3, since all land belonging to family were acquired by the CCL as per Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Since the representation failed to evoke any response from the respondents, the petitioner no. 1 submitted another representation before the Coal of Ministry, Government of India for payment of due compensation and employment to family members. On receipt of said representation Coal Ministry, Government of India wrote a letter to the Chairman cum Managing Director, C.M.P.D.I.L, Ranchi, on 22.12.2004 to take necessary action within 15 days of the receipt of the letter as per Annexure-7 to the writ petition. The respondent no. 2 after receipt of the letter dated 22.12.2004 wrote to General Manager (L & R), CCL, Ranchi to look into the matter, who in turn wrote to the Chief General Manager, Piparwar Area to make an enquiry of the matter. On such instruction, enquiry was made by the concerned respondent and on 07.11.2008 the factual position on the application of the Kauleshwar Mahto was given by the Deputy Chief Manager (L & R) whereby it came to the knowledge of the petitioners that the case of their mother namely Sohabatia Devi for employment in the respondent company was turned down on vague facts but the certificate dated 25.10.2008 given by the Range Forest Officer that their land has been utilized since in the year 1994-95 as evident from Annexure-8 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved by inaction of the respondents, the petitioners left with no alternative, have been constrained to approach this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of their grievances.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously urged that after enquiry made by the respondent-CCL on 07.11.2008, the said enquiry report was not intimated to the petitioners for long, who ran from pillar to post to get information and managed to get the copy of the enquiry report in the year 2012. After that the petitioners filed the instant writ petition, therefore, there is no delay/unexplained delay and laches on the part of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2013) 1 SCC 353 (Tukaram Kana Joshi v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation). Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted with vehemence that the action of the respondents in not providing sufficient employment to the petitioners is contrary to provisions of Article 14, 16, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of delay in approaching this Court has referred to (1969) 1 SCC 185 : AIR 1970 SC 769 (Durga Prasad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports), (1987) 2 SCC 107 : AIR 1987 SC 1353 (Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji), (1992) 2 SCC 598 : AIR 1993 SC 802 (Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company Ltd. v. District Board, Bhojpur), (2003) 2 SCC 593 : AIR 2003 SC 1140 (Dayal Singh v. Union of India) and (2011) 5 SCC 607 : AIR 2011 SC 2161 (Shankara Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. M. Prabhakar). Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to (1984) 2 SCC 337 : AIR 1984 SC 866 (H.D Vora v. State of Maharashtra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to condone delay of 30 years in approaching the court where it found violation of substantive legal rights of the applicant. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have been deprived of their fundamental rights by the respondent-CCL and the petitioners belong to a class which did not have any other vocation or business for the purpose of earning their livelihood. The case of the petitioners should be considered in the right perspective without delving on the technicalities of delay. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondent-CCL should have given employment to the three family members of the awardee and since it has been admitted by the respondent-CCL that against acquisition of 8.27 acres of land by them, only one employment has been given by them to Budhan Mahto (son of awardee).

4. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 6 wherein it has been submitted that since the acquisition is under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it is the State Government to decide the fair amount of compensation and respondents have no role to play in the process. Such issues cannot be decided under a writ jurisdiction on the grounds of availability of efficacious and alternative remedy to the petitioners. It has further been submitted that 8.27 acres of raiyati land has already been consumed in offering employment to one member of the family namely Budhan Mahto and donating 2.27 acres for employment of other persons. One case of Sohbatia Devi could not be considered at the relevant time nor was any claim filed for employment of any other nominee. It has further been submitted that since acquisition has been made by the State Government at the expense of CCL, necessary formalities like assessment for payment of land compensation was done by the State Government. It has further been submitted that the steps were taken by the State Government for acquisition of certain lands for which notification being DLA Haz-42/06-676 dated 02.04.1987 was issued and published in the District Gazette. The same also included the petitioners' land bearing 8.27 acres. Remaining 10 acres of land were in the nature of GMK and therefore could not have been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The State Government cannot acquire its own lands. The 8.27 acres raiyati land has already been consumed in offering employment to one member of the family namely Budhan Mahto and donating 2.27 acres for employment of other persons. One case of Sohabatia Devi could not be considered at the relevant time nor was any claim filed for employment of any other nominee. It has further been submitted that payment of land compensation is one thing and provision of employment against acquisition of land is another thing. The former is statutory right to be guided by the statutory provisions whereas the latter is government by respondent company's own R & R Policy in vogue. It has further been submitted that the petitioners themselves admit that against 6 acres of land two employments were proposed (one employment for three acres of acquired land) One employment was provided to Budhan Mahto against acquisition of land. The case of other nominee namely Sohbatia Devi could not be considered under prescribed norms of R & R Policy. The remaining land 2.27 acres were donated by the awardee for employment of Sri. Bhade Mahto and Baldeo Mahto. On the question of delay it has been submitted that when there are certain discrepancies in the enquiry conducted on 07.11.2008 the petitioners ought to have raised the issues before the respondents at the relevant time or moved this Hon'ble Court for relief but the writ petition itself has been filed in the year 2012 after unexplained delay and laches for four years and as such is fit for rejections. Therefore, the claim of employment after approximately 27 years of acquisition of land is not admissible. It has further been submitted that in the case in hand the entire acquisition proceedings and payment of compensation has been carried out by the State Government or any of its instrumentalities have not been impleaded and in such circumstances, no orders can be passed on the back of necessary respondents without providing them an opportunity of fair hearing.

5. Reply to counter affidavit dated 21.06.2017 has been filed on behalf of the petitioners, wherein it has been mentioned that employment has been given to only one member of the family, namely Budhan Mahto (father of the petitioners) whereas there is provision of giving one employment on 2 acres of land and on this basis employment to 8 more persons is due to be given by the respondent-CCL. In paragraph 13 of the said affidavit, total area of land acquired and the number of family members given employment has been mentioned and the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent company must extend the same benefit to the petitioners.

6. A rejoinder to the reply filed by the petitioner, on behalf of respondent-nos.1 to 6 dated 28.07.2017 has been filed, wherein it has been submitted that the father of the petitioners namely Budhan Manto on 15.09.2003 laid a claim vide Annexure-6 to the writ petition, but there is no whisper of the 10 acres of GMK land and having been duly settled in the name of the applicant. The applicant Sri. Budhan Mahto also did not take care to submit at least the genealogical chart issued by the competent authority of the State in order to establish their claim as descendants of the original awardee Sri. Ritu Mahto. The application was incomplete and without factual details and supporting documents. Moreover, no documents have been filed to establish that the said 10 acres land was settled in the name of ancestors of the petitioners under Khuntkatti rights by the State Government and in absence whereof the claim has no basis. Further being a disputed question of fact the same cannot be decided under a writ jurisdiction and petitioners ought to have filed suit in a civil court of competent jurisdiction. Therefore, it has been submitted that the claim relates to the payment of land compensation or enhancement thereof is a matter to be dealt exclusively by the State Government under the provisions of the Act itself. In so far as provisions of employment is concerned, the same does not deserve to be considered as the entire land belonging to the petitioners has been consumed and there is no land left behind for entertaining the claim at this stage. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners for considering employment against 18.27 acres of land (8.27 acres raiyati and 10 acres GMK settled under Khuntkatti rights) does not crystallize and is therefore not admissible.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer of the petitioner in view of the reasons stated hereinbelow:

(I) In the instant writ application the petitioners have come up with two fold prayers; for payment of land compensation or enhancement thereof-which has been dealt with exclusively by the State Government under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and so far as providing employment is concerned the same has to be seen in the light of policy of the respondent company under rehabilitation and resettlement policy in vogue. Moreover, provision of employment is subject to utility of land and the extent of land acquired. From perusal of record, it appears that at the time of acquisition of the land one employment was provided to Budhan Mahto and the case of other nominee Sohbatia Devi could not be considered as the same did not confirm to the prescribed norms of R & R Policy. It has further been disclosed in the counter affidavit that out of 8.27 acres that acquisition of 6 acres of land, the case of Budhan Mahto and Sohbatia Devi was considered and for remaining 2.27 acres, the employment of Sri. Bhade Mahto and Baldeo Mahto were considered. In the meantime, more than 27 years have elapsed from the date of acquisition of land. So far providing employment at this belated stage is concerned, the case cannot be kept open for indefinite period of time and therefore, the case of the petitioners cannot be considered at this distance of time for employment as land oustee as displaced persons.

(II) The view of this Court gets fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Daby Lal Mahto) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph 11, has held as under: