Disposed

Mikhail Munda v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC6 Sept 2019WPC/3020/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking compensation for acquired land. As the petitioner failed to appear, the Court did not adjudicate the claim but granted liberty to file a fresh representation with relevant documents to the Special Land Acquisition Officer for disposal within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file a fresh representation with relevant documents regarding title and possession to the Special Land Acquisition Officer for disposal within six weeks.

Mikhail Munda Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors. — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 3020 of 2008

¶3

¶4

Mikhail Munda. ……Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi.

¶7

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Khunti.

¶8

The District Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi.

¶9

The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Bundu, Ranchi.

¶10

…...Respondents

¶11

-----

¶12

Coram: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ----- For the Petitioner : None For The State : Mr. Vinit Prakash, A.C. to L& C I

¶13

06/06.09.2019 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner.

¶14

However, Mr. Vinit Prakash, learned A.C. to L & C I is present.

¶15

The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to make payment of compensation on account of 10.60 acres of land situated in Khata No. 81, Plot No.1278 of village-Kubasal having been acquired in terms of Land Acquisition Case No.1/1988-89.

¶16

It has been averred in the writ petition that part of lands, which were acquired, were inherited by the petitioner from his ancestor and he is regularly paying rent to the State. It has been claimed by the petitioner that a notice had been issued in Case No. 01 of 1988-89, in which the petitioner was intimated that the land of the petitioner has been acquired by the respondents for construction of “Surangi Jalashay”, a medium irrigation project, Ranchi. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of acquisition of land of the petitioner, no compensation has been paid to him in spite of repeated representations having been submitted by the petitioner.

¶17

In rejoinder to the counter affidavit, the petitioner has stated about the name of his ancestor being entered in register-II and rent was also being paid with effect from 1960 till date.

¶18

In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the claim of the petitioner has been denied and it has been stated that no documentary evidence regarding the title of the land in question was ever produced by the petitioner during acquisition proceeding and as such the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that out of 16.61 acres of land, 6.56 acres of land stand recorded in the name of the State and nature of land has been shown as Gair Majaruwa Khas “Jhar” in revenue records of right.

¶19

The petitioner in his writ petition as well as in his rejoinder to the counter affidavit has specifically stated about the name of his ancestors figuring in

¶20

register-II and that rent was also regularly paid from 1960-61. However, the respondents on the pretext that no documentary evidence has been produced by the petitioner has denied the claim of the petitioner. If the petitioner is in possession of the documents, which would indicate the title and possession over the lands, which were acquired for construction of Surangi Jalashay, the petitioner is at liberty to produce the same before the appropriate Forum for their consideration.

¶21

Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before respondent no. 2 along with all relevant documents which according to the petitioner indicates his title and possession over the acquired land and if such representation is filed, respondent no. 2 shall consider and dispose it of by speaking/reasoned order within a period of six weeks from the date of submission of representation.

¶22

It goes without saying that if the claim of the petitioner is found to be genuine, the respondent no. 2 shall proceed further in accordance with law.

¶23

This writ petition stands disposed of.

¶24

Rakesh/-

Mikhail Munda v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mikhail Munda v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

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

Gita Devi Gunja Devi And Anr. Vs Gita Devi And Ors.

Manu Enterprises And Anr. Vs Coal India Limited And Ors.

Chatu Mahto And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Smt Parul Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Surendra Nath Sanyal And Ors. Vs Lord Shiva Temple Through The Trustee Namely Nirmal Chand Dutta And Ors.

Rabindra Kumar Jena Alias Ravindra Kumar Jena Vs the Union of India through CBI

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Gita Devi  Gunja Devi And Anr. Vs Gita Devi And Ors.

Manu Enterprises And Anr. Vs Coal India Limited And Ors.

Chatu Mahto And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Smt Parul Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Surendra Nath Sanyal And Ors. Vs Lord Shiva Temple Through The Trustee Namely Nirmal Chand Dutta And Ors.

Rabindra Kumar Jena Alias Ravindra Kumar Jena Vs the Union of India through CBI

Gita Devi Gunja Devi And Anr. Vs Gita Devi And Ors.