Disposed

Kunjlal Mistry v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC13 Nov 2019WPC/450/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Counsel argued that the dispute over compensation apportionment should be adjudicated by a civil court under the National Highways Act. The court, without examining merits, directed the Deputy Commissioner to decide the petitioners' application within three months and disposed of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih is directed to take a decision on the application within three months.

Kunjlal Mistry Vs the State of Jharkhand — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P (C) No. 450 of 2018

¶3

1.Kunjlal Mistry. 2.Narayan Mistry. 3.Lekhraj Mistri. 4.Tokho Mistry. 5.Panchu Mistry. .…… Petitioners

¶4

Versus

¶5

1.The State of Jharkhand. 2.The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih.

¶6

3.The District Land Acquisition officer, Giridih.

¶7

4.The National Highway Authority of India through its Director. 5.Bhaglu Mistry. 6.Tejo Mistry. 7.Mukhia Mistry. 8.Ganga Mistry. …… Respondents

¶8

---------

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶10

---------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Adv. For the State : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Sr. S.C-III. For the Respondent-NHAI : Ms. Sweety Topno, Adv. -----------

¶11

6/Dated: 13^th November, 2019

¶12

This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby following prayers have been made:

¶13

(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) commanding upon the respondent to make equal distribution of compensation amount in respect of award No.325 among the petitioners and respondents No.5 to 8 on the basis of the notice of award dated 02.10.17 (Annexure-2).

¶14

(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) order(s) direction(s) commanding upon the respondent to verity the “Land possession certificate” submitted by respondent by the revenue authorities and prepare fresh L.P.C on the basis of record of right and other relevant record.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has submitted that since the dispute pertains to apportionment of the amount of compensation and to that effect an application has been made as under Annexure-4 which in view of the provision of Section 3(h) 4 the National Highways Act, 1956 is required to be referred before the competent court of civil jurisdiction for adjudication of the dispute but as yet no decision has been taken by the

¶16

authority concerned. He is now confining his prayer for issuance of direction to that effect.

¶17

Ms. Sweety Topno, learned counsel for the respondent-NHAI and Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned Sr. S.C-III have jointly submitted that since petitioner has already made an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, as such appropriate direction may be passed to take decision in view of the conferment of power under Section 3(h) 4 the National Highways Act, 1956 .

¶18

This Court, after having heard learned counsel for the parties and without going into the merit of the issues regarding apportionment of the amount of compensation, deem it fit and proper to dispose of the matter taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has already made application before the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih and under the provision of Section 3(h) 4 the National Highways Act, 1956 he is required to take decision.

¶19

The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih is directed to take decision on the application under Annexure-4 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶20

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶21

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶22

Saket/-

Kunjlal Mistry v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunjlal Mistry 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

Ms Usha Martin Limited Through Its President Mining Division Sri Karun Kant Dave Vs Mines And Geological Survey

Tapan Kumar Saha Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Deptt of Excise and Prohibition

Manoj Kumar Rajhans Vs the Deoghar Municipality through Its Town Commissioner

Sarda Mahila Mandal Represented Through Secretary Piyaso Devi Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Kedar Nath Sharma Vs Honble Minister Department of Agriculture and Husbandary and Co. Operative

Bhola Bhagat Vs the State of Jharkhand