Dismissed

Santosh Kumar Majee v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC8 Jul 2019WPC/2572/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners purchased land already acquired by the State but claimed original title holder status for compensation after the vendor sold after the Section 4 notice. The Court held this dispute regarding compensation apportionment requires civil or statutory remedy under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dismissing the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition failed and dismissed with direction to seek remedy under Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Santosh Kumar Majee Vs State of Jharkhand — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.2572 of 2018

¶2

Santosh Kumar Majee, aged about 58 years, Son of Late Sripati Lal Majee.

¶3

Smt. Chhayarani Manjhi, aged about 49 years, Wife of Santosh Kumar Majee.

¶4

Laboni Majee, aged about 26 years, Daughter of Santosh Kumar Majee.

¶5

Jishu Krishna Majee, Aged about 22 years, son of Santosh Kumar Majee.

¶6

All resident of Sana (Kashitand), P.O. & P.S.-Nirsa, District-Dhanbad

¶7

…… Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Jharkhand.

¶10

The District Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad, Office at Hirapur, P.O. & P.S.-Hirapur, District Dhanbad.

¶11

Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, Office at Hirapur, P.O. & P.S.Hirapur, District-Dhanbad.

¶12

Ramnath Madal, son of late Surendra Mandal, Resident of Kantajani, P.S. Nirsa, P.O.-Keliasol, District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand).

¶13

…… Respondents

¶14

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶15

For the Petitioners : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Prashant Pallav, GA-IV Mr. Navneet Sahay, Advocate Mr. Parth Jalan, AC to GA-IV

¶16

06 / Dated 08th July, 2019

¶17

This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the land has been acquired under the provision of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the “Act, 1894”) for construction of dedicated freight Corridor of Indian Railways in Land Acquisition Case No.74/2011-12.

¶18

It is the admitted case of the petitioners that notice under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 was issued on 04.02.2012 and has purchased

¶19

property from the title holder on 01.03.2013 as would be evident from the statement made at paragraph 5 to the counter affidavit.

¶20

The acquisition proceeding has proceeded.

¶21

The petitioners' grievance is that since they have purchased the land, which is the subject matter of the acquisition, on 01.03.2013, therefore, even though the notice has been issued on 04.02.2012 upon the vendor of the petitioners from whom the petitioners have purchased the landed property will have no right to claim the compensation for the reason that he has already taken consideration money at the time of transfer of the title of the said landed property as on 01.03.2013 and therefore, the instant writ petition has been filed for seeking appropriate direction to the effect that the petitioners be held to be the original title holders and the award be prepared in their favour.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the railway has submitted that it is not the fact about the outcome of the said land acquisition case is not known to the petitioners, since the same has not been disclosed in the writ petition, however, he submits that the contention as has been raised by the petitioners seems to be incorrect in view of the fact that the land acquisition proceeding will be set at motion the day when Section 4 notification of the Act, 1894 will be issued, herein, the said notice was issued on 04.02.2012 and on that date the petitioners had got no title over the land in question rather the vendor of the petitioners was the absolute title holder.

¶23

However, he submits that if the petitioners have any grievance with respect to the compensation or the land acquisition, the remedy lies elsewhere and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶24

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions, the admitted fact in this case is that the land acquisition proceeding has been initiated being Land Acquisition Case No.74/2011-12.

¶25

The petitioners have purchased the landed property on 01.03.2013 which was in course of pendency of the land acquisition

¶26

proceeding, therefore, the petitioners are claiming that they are the original title holder of the landed property which is the subject matter of the acquisition and as such the direction has been sought for upon the respondents to disburse the amount of compensation along with the interest in their favour.

¶27

The question of apportionment or disbursement of compensation is involved in this case which cannot be adjudicated by the writ Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since the remedy is available which can be availed either under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or by initiating appropriate proceeding under the competent court of civil jurisdiction.

¶28

In view of the dispute issue which has been sought to be answered by this Court, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition, accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.

¶29

However, it is open for the petitioners to invoke the remedy by searching out either under the Land Acquisition Act or by filing a suit.

¶30

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶31

Saurabh

Santosh Kumar Majee v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Majee v. 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

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.

Tulsi Dutta Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Hamid Mian And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited through Its Manager Revenue Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Urban Development and Housing Department