Dismissed

Basudeo Mahto And Ors. v. State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC10 Jun 2019WPC/6334/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioners challenged land acquisition compensation determined by the District Land Acquisition Officer. Bench allowed an interim application to implead necessary cosharers. Subsequently, dismissing the main writ petition, the Court refrained from interfering as the compensation dispute was legally referred to the Civil Court.

What did the court decide?

Impleadment of two respondents; Writ petition dismissed with liberty to pursue claim in Civil Court.

Basudeo Mahto And Ors. 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.6334 of 2016

¶3

With

¶4

I.A.No.3055 of 2017

¶5

¶6

Basudeo Mahto 2. Mahadeo Mahto 3. Jaideo Mahto 4. Naresh Mahto 5. Jageshwar Mahto ……… Petitioners Versus

¶7

State of Jharkhand 2. District Land Acquisition Officer 3. Baleshwar Yadav 4. Dineshwar Yadav 5. Sukhdeo Yadav 6. Ganesh Yadav 7. Nandeo Yadav 8. Naresh Yadav 9. Jaganath Mahto 10. Naval Kishore Yadav

¶8

Arjun Yadav

¶9

Bhudeo Yadav 13. Jaideo Yadav 14. Shankar Mahto 15. Kodi Mahto ………. Respondents --------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD --------For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, Advocate Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate For the State : Mr. Parth Jalan, A.C. to G.A.-IV For the Respondents : Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate

¶10

¶11

07/10.06.2019 This writ petition has been listed under the heading for ‘Fresh Filing’ along with interlocutory application being I.A.No.3055 of 2017 which has been filed by Pramallia Devi and Dropathi Devi wife of Shri Dinesh Prasad Yadav and Shri Rajkishor Yadav respectively who claims to be the interested party by virtue of claiming to be the cosharers of the property which has been acquired by the competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and therefore, statement has been made therein that even though they are necessary

¶12

parties but they have not been impleaded as a party to the writ petition, hence this interlocutory application.

¶13

Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, along with Mr. Lalit Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has no objection with the aforesaid interlocutory application.

¶14

Considering the aforesaid submission and looking to the factual aspect stating in the interlocutory application being I.A.No.3055 of 2017, the same is being allowed.

¶15

The applicants namely Pramallia Devi and Dropathi Devi wife of Shri Dinesh Prasad Yadav and Shri Rajkishor Yadav respectively have been directed to be impleaded as respondents to the writ petition.

¶16

Office is directed to make necessary addition in the pleading.

¶17

W.P.(C) No.6334 of 2016

¶18

Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the outset, has submitted that the land in question has been acquired by the competent authority but the amount of compensation although has been disbursed but not as per the proper value and quantum and therefore, one application has been filed before the competent authority i.e., District Land Acquisition Officer, Deoghar who has rejected the claim as would be evident from the order as contained under Annexure-3(page no.41) wherein there is a reference of Khata No.23 for which the petitioner claims to be the Jamabandi Raiyat but the competent authority after going across the record has considered the fact that no document has been produced by the petitioner, and as has rejected the claim.

¶19

He, therefore, submits that the matter has now been referred before the competent court of civil jurisdiction for determination of the issue and therefore, he has sought for liberty to pursue the aforesaid dispute.

¶20

Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the newly added respondents as also the State-Respondent have submitted that the appropriate order may be passed.

¶21

Mrs. Kumar, has submitted that she will also put her appearance on behalf of newly added respondents for proper adjudication of the issue.

¶22

Considering the aforesaid submission and looking to the factual aspect more particularly the reference made by the competent authority before the competent court of civil jurisdiction with respect to the determination of the dispute being L.A.(Deo.) Case No.61 of 2017, this Court refrains itself in interfering with the issue in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶23

However, it is open to the parties to pursue their claim which is lying pending before the concerned Court being L.A.(Deo.) Case No.61 of 2017, if they so choose which will be decided in accordance with law and on its own merit.

¶24

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶25

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶26

Rohit/-

Basudeo Mahto And Ors. v. State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basudeo Mahto And Ors. 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

Meghnath Rajwar Vs Karu Teli

Shiv Kumar Khemka Vs The State Of Jharkhand Thr The Principal Secretary Revenue And Land Reforms And Ors.

Ms Nexgensolution Tecnologies Pvt. Ltd. through Its Manager Rajiv Kumar Jha Vs Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Gokul Mahto Vs Most Rango Devi And Ors.

Sanjay Singh Vs Tata Iron And Steel Company Limited And Anr.

Satya Pal Verma Vs Qurban Quraisi