Disposed

Raghubir Tiwary v. M/S Central Coalfields Ltd. And O

Jharkhand HC23 Apr 2019WPC/6559/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition for compensation regarding ancestral land acquired by M/s CCL, the Court dismissed the case after ensuring the Respondent has forwarded necessary documents. The petition is disposed of in view of pending internal administrative steps.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file a fresh representation; the Project Officer must consider the grievance and pass a reasoned order within 12 weeks.

Raghubir Tiwary Vs M/S Central Coalfields Ltd. And O — Specific Performance | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6559 of 2011 Raghubir Tiwary .... Petitioner

¶2

Versus M/s Central Coalfields Limited (CCL) through its Chairman, Darbhanga House, Ranchi & others… Respondents

¶3

¶4

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶5

¶6

For the Petitioner : None For the CCL : Mrs. Nalini Jha, Advocate ---

¶7

Order No. 03 Dated 23^rd April, 2019

¶8

No one appears for the petitioner. However, Mrs. Nalini Jha, learned counsel for the M/s. CCL is present.

¶9

The prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to compensate the petitioner in lieu of his ancestral land which was acquired by the respondents.

¶10

It has been stated that the father of the petitioner namely, Shri Lakhan Tiwary had got a piece of land settled in the name of his wife Bigo Devi in the year 1954-55 which is situated at Piparwar Area, Mouza Kutki, Khata No. 44, P.S. Tandwa. The petitioner has averred that the said land was acquired by M/s. CCL on 14.05.1990 and is being used by the company. The respondent authorities had verbally allowed the petitioner to reside in Qr. No. MQ-27 situated at Rai Colony and the petitioner was permitted to reside in the same till he was suitably compensated on account of the land which was acquired by the CCL.

¶11

The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was issued a notice with respect to his unauthorized occupation of the quarter and in fact although several representations were filed by the petitioner, the petitioner has not been suitably compensated by the respondent CCL.

¶12

A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent CCL in which it has been stated that the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of the quarter in question since there is no oral or written permission given by the respondents to the petitioner to stay in the quarter in question. With respect to compensation, it has been stated that the land has been settled in the name of Smt. Bigo Devi wife of Sri Lakhan Tiwari and the request has been sent to the General Manager (Land & Revenue), CCL, Ranchi.

¶13

The issue with respect to the occupation of the quarter in question as claimed by the petitioner does not hold any basis in view of the fact that no

¶14

¶15

authorized permission has been given by the respondents to the petitioner to stay in the quarter in question. So far as compensation in lieu of the ancestral land of the petitioner which was acquired by the respondent-CCL is concerned, necessary documents have been sent to the General Manager (Land & Revenue), CCL, Ranchi, as stated in the counter affidavit filed by respondent CCL.

¶16

In such circumstances, therefore it could be deciphered that the claim for compensation as made by the petitioner is being looked into by CCL. In such view of the matter therefore this writ petition stands disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the respondent No. 3 (Project Officer, CCL, Piparwar, Bachra, Ranchi), stating his grievance in detail with respect to compensation and the respondent No. 3 on receipt of such representation shall consider the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of representation.

¶17

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶18

Raghubir Tiwary v. M/S Central Coalfields Ltd. And O

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghubir Tiwary v. M/S Central Coalfields Ltd. And O

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pappu Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mousumi Bhattacharjee Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dhiru Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Suresh Ram Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors.

M/S Adya Enterprises through Its Director Raj Kumar Singhi Vs Jharkhand State Electricity Board through Its Chairman And Others

Anil Chandra Biswas Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.