Disposed

Mukti Mahato v. Land Acquisition And Rehabilitation

Jharkhand HC19 Jan 2015WPC/3524/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand disposed of a writ petition seeking compensation and rehabilitation for a displaced person. The court refused to entertain the prayer for compensation but directed the Rehabilitation Officer to decide on the petitioner's representation within six months of submission.

What did the court decide?

Directorate to take a decision on petitioner's representation within six months of submission.

Mukti Mahato Vs Land Acquisition And Rehabilitation — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W. P. (C) No. 3524 of 2013

¶3

1.Mukti Mahto, S/o late Jadu Mahto, R/o Village-Udatar, P.O. Janum, P.S. Nimdih, District-Saraikella-Kharsawan, presently residing at C/o Amulya Mahto,Village- Latemda, P.O. Kukru, P.S. Tiruldih, District-Saraikella-Kharsawan

¶4

... ... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

The Rehabilitation Officer,(Udatar), Subarnarekha Project, At P.O. and P.S. Chandil, District-Saraikella, Kharsawan.

¶8

The Additional Director, Land Acquisition & Rehabilitation, Subarnarekha Project Bhawan, Adityapur, Seraikella Kharswan

¶9

The D.C., Seraikella Kharswan

¶10

The Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Govt of

¶11

Jharkhand, Nepal House, Ranchi

¶12

The Special Land Acquisitional Officer, (For VillageUdatar, P.S. Nimdih) Subarnrekha Project at Chandil, District-Saraikella-Kharsawan … ... Respondents

¶13

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

¶14

For the Petitioners : Mr. Jagannath Mahato, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sunil Singh, J.C. to S.C (Mines) --------------

¶15

05/19.01.2015 The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents to make payment of compensation amount to the petitioner in respect of landed property of petitioner's share in Mouza Udatar in Khata No. 83, 84, 85 and various plots particularly which have been indicated in joint possession not less than 1 acre and also for issuance of Vikas Pustika and to provide rehabilitation facilities as he is a fully displaced person.

¶16

In so far as, the claim for compensation is concerned, in view of specific statement made in the counter-affidavit, I am not inclined to entertain the prayer seeking direction with respect to payment of compensation.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits

¶18

that this writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the

¶19

respondent no. 2-Rehabilitation Officer,(Udatar), Subarnarekha Project, Chandil to dispose of the representation of the petitioner expeditiously.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has no objection.

¶21

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent no. 2 -Rehabilitation Officer (Udatar), Subarnarekha Project, Chandil within a period of six weeks and upon submitting his representation/representations, the respondent no. 2 shall take a decision within next six months in accordance with law.

¶22

The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶23

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

¶24

satyarthi/-

Mukti Mahato v. Land Acquisition And Rehabilitation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukti Mahato v. Land Acquisition And Rehabilitation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Julekha Khatoon and Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Tiklu Tarafdar Alias Paroj Tarafdar Alias Bachchu Tarafdar and Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Orissa Manganess and Minerals Limited through Its General Manager Shri Braj Kishore Kumar Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief Secretary And Ors.

Rajendra Prasad Shukla Vs Collectariate

Sayed MD Nasim Vs Haji Syed Md Shamim And Others

Yugeshwar Ram Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.