Disposed

Dil Mohammad Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Jharkhand HC16 Jul 2019WPC/1366/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges the sufficiency of land compensation for agricultural land acquired under the NH-2 widening project. The Court invoked its writ jurisdiction to direct the Additional Collector-cum-Arbitrator to dispose of the petitioner's objection regarding compensation within two months without deciding the merits itself.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Additional Collector-cum-Arbitrator to dispose of the objection within two months.

Dil Mohammad Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its… — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.

¶2

W.P. (C) No. 1366 of 2019

¶3

Dil Mohammad Ansari … … Petitioner

¶4

-V e r s u s-

¶5

1.The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶6

2.Deputy Commissioner, Giridih.

¶7

3.Additional Collector-cum-Arbitrator, Giridih.

¶8

4.District Land Acquisition Officer-cum-District Competent Authority under the National Highway Act, Giridih … Respondents.

¶9

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶10

For the Petitioner : - Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent-State : -Mr. Krishna Shankar, S.C. (L&C)-II and Mr. Nitish Krishna, A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-II.

¶11

04/16.07.2019 This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner being not satisfied with the quantum of amount of compensation with respect to the land acquired for widening of National Highway (NH-2) and for a further direction to pay compensation in terms of the provision of the applicable Act.

¶12

It is the case of the petitioner that the land in question has been acquired by the National Highway Authority of India for widening of National Highway (NH-2), treating the land as being agricultural, the amount of compensation has been paid for giving it to the petitioner. Some part of the land where the construction is made, upon which the School is running as also the residential house has been constructed but the authority taking the parameter of the fixation of the amount of compensation, treating the land as agricultural, has fixed the amount of compensation and to that effect, an objection has been filed invoking the provision of the National Highway Act, 1956, as would appear from Annexure-6 series, but, as yet, no decision has been taken by the duly appointed Arbitrator or the Respondent No. 3, therefore, the instant writ petition.

¶13

Learned A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-II appearing for the RespondentState has submitted that since the Arbitrator is in seisin of the matter and the petitioner has made objection, therefore, appropriate order may be passed.

¶14

This Court having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and looking to the materials available on record has found that the petitioner is being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, has made an objection

¶15

It is evident from the provision, as stipulated under Section 3 (g) (v) of the National Highway Act, 1956, which provides the provision conferring the statutory remedy to such land losers, whose lands have been acquired, but being not satisfied, the remedy lies under the provision to make an objection which is to be determined by the Arbitrator.

¶16

In view thereof and taking into consideration that the petitioner has raised objection before the Respondent No. 3, therefore, this Court deem it fit and proper to direct the Respondent No. 3, Additional Collector-cum-Arbitrator, Giridih to dispose of the objection in accordance with law after hearing the affected parties including the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order.

¶17

It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merit of the claim of the petitioner. The concerned authority shall decide the objection strictly in accordance with law.

¶18

This writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly.

¶19

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶20

APK

Dil Mohammad Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dil Mohammad Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

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

Shiv Shankar Singh Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Sagar Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kashilal Tudu Vs Bhukhlal Manjhi And Ors.

Ms Chandra Construction Through Its Proprietor Kameshwar Prasad Yadav Vs The Union Of India Through Ministry Of Road Transport Andhighways And Ors.

Safiran Bibi Alias Sabiran Bibi And Anr. Vs Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Khagen Hansda Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Land Reforms Govt of Jharkhand