Dismissed

Hamid Mian v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC6 Jul 2019WPC/2206/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order dismissed a writ petition challenging land acquisition and valuation under the National Highways Act, 1956. The Court held the petition not maintainable due to an available alternative remedy, though liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach the competent authority.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the competent authority under the National Highways Act, 1956.

Hamid Mian Vs the State of Jharkhand — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (C) No. 2206 of 2018

¶3

-----

¶4

Hamid Mian ... Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶7

2.The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih

¶8

3.The Director, National Highway Authority of India Limited, New Delhi .… … ... Respondents

¶9

-----

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶11

----- For the Petitioner : M/s Saurav Arun, L. Kumar & A.K. Sinha, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, S.C. (L&C) I Mr. Devanand Kumar, Ms. Bakshi Vibha, Advocates -----

¶12

Order No. 04 : Dated 6th July, 2019

¶13

This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder direction has been sought for upon the respondents for making correction in the nature of land and also for appropriate valuation of the property of the petitioner, which is being acquired by them for expansion of the National Highway No. 2 bearing Plot No. 625/9, Khata No. 155 and Plot No. 2182, Khata No. 170 of village Aura, P.S. Bagodar, Thana No. 252 in the district of Giridih.

¶14

2. Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, learned S.C. (L & C) I appearing for the respondents-State submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of availability of alternative remedy under the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 (herein after referred to as “the Act, 1956”).

¶15

3. Upon this, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that writ petition may be disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to avail such remedy.

¶16

4. In view thereof, as has been submitted by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy, as provided under the provisions of the Act, 1956.

¶17

5. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶18

6. However, it is open to the petitioner to approach before the competent authority for availing remedy available under the Act, 1956. If such provisions is resorted to by the petitioner, the same would be dealt with by the competent authority in accordance with law.

¶19

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶20

Alankar/-

Hamid Mian v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hamid Mian v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Mukesh Kumar Burnwal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prasadi Sao Vs Rajendra Prasad Sao And Ors.

Aabid Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mohan Rabidas Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Gopal Singh Bhumij Alias Gopal Bhumij Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Kanhai Soni Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.