Dismissed

Bhado Oraon v. Revenue Department

Jharkhand HC1 Aug 2016WPC/2659/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

These writ petitions challenge the acquisition of lands since 1960-61 for the Heavy Engineering Corporation. The petitioners claimed non-physical possession sought relief under RA 2013. Due to insufficient pleadings and lack of supporting documents despite adjournments, the matters could not be effectively examined.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Court with complete facts, pleadings, material particulars and supporting documents.

Bhado Oraon Vs Revenue Department — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (C) No. 2378 of 2014 with

¶3

W.P.(C) No. 3169 of 2014 with W.P.(C) No. 2659 of 2015 with W.P.(C) No. 2955 of 2015 with W.P.(C) No. 3211 of 2015 with W.P.(C) No. 3477 of 2015 with W.P.(C) No. 3487 of 2015 ---

¶4

WPC 2378/2014 Rahul Oraon WPC 3169/2014 Somnath Tirkey WPC 2659/2015 Bhado Oraon WPC 2955/2015 Kashvir Mahto WPC 3211/2015 Babu Toppo WPC 3477/2015 Sanjay Lohra WPC 3487/2015 Roshan Oraon -------Petitioners Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Secretary, Revenue Department, Jharkhand

¶7

Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi

¶8

Additional Collector, Ranchi

¶9

Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi

¶10

Circle Officer, Nagri, Ranchi

¶11

State of Bihar

¶12

Secretary, Revenue Department, Govt. of Bihar

¶13

Chairman cum Managing Director, Heavy Engineering Corporation, Ranchi 10. General Manager (T), Heavy Engineering Corporation, Ranchi

¶14

------- Respondents

¶15

CORAM: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh

¶16

For the Petitioners: Mr. Jorong Jedan Sanga, Advocate For the Resp - State: M/s Atanu Banerejee, GA, Bhawesh Kumar, SC-II, Suman Kr. Ghosh, JC to GA, Ravi Kumar, JC to SC-II For the Resp – HEC: Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Advocate For the Resp – State of Bihar: Mr. Binit Chandra, JC to GA, Bihar

¶17

¶18

08/ 01.08.2016 Matter has been adjourned six times before, most of the times at the behest of the petitioners. On the last occasion, it was by way of last indulgence to enable the counsel for the petitioners to file supplementary affidavit to supplement their averments made in the writ petitions by cogent and convincing documents.

¶19

Primarily, the grievance of the petitioners is in relation to acquisition

¶20

¶21

proceedings of the year 1960-61 for establishment of Heavy Engineering Corporation in the vicinity of township of Ranchi at Dhurwa. Petitioners have approached this Court in the year 2014 with a prayer to de-notify the land situate in the respective villages.

¶22

3 In all these cases, petitioners claim that the lands mentioned in the pleadings were the subject matter of Land Acquisition Case Nos. 232/60-61 and 2/60-61 in WPC Nos. 2378/2014, 2659/2015, 2955/2015 and WPC 3477/2015 and Land Acquisition Case Nos. 61/59-60 and 71/59-60 in WPC Nos. 3169/2014 and Land Acquisition Case Nos. 6/60-61 and 17/61-62, 20/58-59, 48/58-59 and 11/83-84 in WPC No. 3211.2015 and WPC No. 3487/2015 for the purposes of setting up of Heavy Engineering Corporation. They have tried to set up a case that the physical possession of the lands in question have never been taken despite process of acquisition having been completed long ago. They relied upon the provisions of the Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013, specifically Sub-section 24(2) to seek release of their lands as acquisition thereto should be treated to have lapsed in such circumstances.

¶23

4 As a matter of fact, neither is the Notification of acquisition on record, nor are the relevant proceedings of the Land Acquisition Cases on record to support the averments in the writ petitions for the aforesaid relief. That was the reason for the petitioners to seek adjournment for supplementing their averments by cogent and convincing documents. On the previous date also, taking note of insufficient pleadings and supporting cogent and convincing documents, matter was adjourned by way of last indulgence. Petitioners have not been able to file such affidavit along with supporting documents. The very issue therefore cannot be effectively examined in the present state of pleadings in these matters. Therefore, writ petitions are being dismissed with a liberty to the petitioners to approach the Court with all relevant facts, pleadings and material particulars along with supporting documents.

¶24

( Aparesh Kumar Singh, J )

¶25

Ranjeet/

Bhado Oraon v. Revenue Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhado Oraon v. Revenue Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Praveen Shankar Dayal Vs Central Bank Of India Through Its Branch Manager And Ors.

Sahdeo Sao Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Permanand Bhagat Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Bijay Kumar Alias Bijay Yadav Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Deepak Kumar Vs Bokaro Steel Plant Through Deputy General Manager Contract Cell And Anr.

Somnath Tirkey Vs Revenue Department