Disposed

Rukmangad Pathak and Ors. v. the State of Jharkhand And Others

Jharkhand HC11 Aug 2016WPC/7335/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a single-paragraph order disposing of a writ petition challenging dispossession for land acquisition. The court noted that compensation was paid to most petitioners but not three specific ones (16, 17, 18) based on affidavits. The petition was disposed with liberty for the three to claim outstanding compensation.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with liberty to petitioners 16, 17, and 18 to approach the Land Acquisition Officer for payment of compensation if not already paid.

Rukmangad Pathak and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand And… — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (C) No. 7335 of 2012

¶3

Rukmangad Pathak 2.Jitendar Pathak 3.Naimuddin Khan 4.Ram Surat Thakur 5.Ram Lagan Thakur 6.Nasruddin Khan 7.Anwar Ahmad Khan 8.Masood Ahmad Khan 9.Shafique Ahmad Khan 10.Nishant Ahmad Khan 11.Ramji Dusadh 12.Bigan Choudhary 13.Sachidanand Pathak 14.Padma Bhushan Pathak 15.Phuleshwar Choudhary 16.Uday Choudhary 17.Kapil Choudhary 18.Bishnudeo Choudhary 19.Karamdeo Ram 20.Ganesh Ram 21.Sheo Kumar Ram 22.Deonath Ram 23.Anil Kumar Pathak ... ... ... Petitioners Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Ranchi 3.The Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa 4.The Land Acquisition officer, Garhwa 5. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Division, Garhwa ... ... ... Respondents

¶4

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH

¶5

............

¶6

For the Petitioners : Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari For the Respondents : J.C. to S.C. (L &C)

¶7

14/11.08.2016

¶8

These 23 petitioners have approached this court for a direction upon the Respondents not to dispossess and displace the petitioners from their respective occupancy in execution of, Khajuri Minor Irrigation Scheme and construction of dam and canal, without paying them due compensation and without their rehabilitation.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners referring to paragraph 6 of the supplementary-affidavit of Respondent Nos. 2 and 5 submits that the compensation amount has already been paid to all the

¶10

-2-

¶11

petitioners except petitioner nos. 16, 17 and 18. The chart at Annexure-A is also enclosed in support thereto. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the wake of aforesaid statement made , the writ petition may be disposed of with liberty to petitioner Nos. 16, 17 and 18 to approach the competent authority/Respondent No. 4, Land Acquisition Officer, Garhwa for release of the compensation due to them, if not already paid by now.

¶12

Learned counsel for the State submits that after the supplementary-affidavit filed on 7th of August 2013, another counteraffidavit of Respondent Nos. 2 and 5 dated 04.12.2014 has been filed. It has been stated that compensation of Rs. 3,78,21,751/- has been deposited by the Department for payment of compensation to the land losers, Annexure-A thereto. It is submitted that as per the said affidavit, construction work has been started after payment of compensation to the land losers. It is further stated by reference to paragraph 20 of the said affidavit that compensation amount has already been paid to the petitioners and their demand have been fulfilled. It is further submitted based on the said affidavit that there is no scheme of rehabilitation.

¶13

Having regard to the rival facts noticed hereinabove through the affidavits of the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of with liberty to the petitioners 16,17 and 18 to approach the competent authority/Respondent No. 4 for payment of compensation if not already paid in accordance with law within a reasonable time.

¶14

Pending I.A. stands closed.

¶15

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)

¶16

Binit

Rukmangad Pathak and Ors. v. the State of Jharkhand And Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rukmangad Pathak and Ors. v. the State of Jharkhand And Others

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

Geeta Chandra Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Suman Mishra And Ors. Vs Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Sunit Bouri Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Sima Kumara Vs Human Resources Department

Management of Central Bank of Vs Dinanath Tiwary And Anr.

Ms Wheels Represented Through Its Authorized Signatory Sri Naroo Gopal Das Vs Union Of India Through The General Manager South Eastern Railway And Ors.