Disposed

Arjun Mahto and Ors. v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Jharkhand HC24 Jan 2020WPC/4878/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging land acquisition, the Court held that the dispute cannot be decided by a writ court as the petitioners had already filed representations. The petitioners were directed to submit a fresh representation to the District Land Acquisition Officer within eight weeks for objective decision.

What did the court decide?

Directing the petitioners to file a fresh representation before the District Land Acquisition Officer within eight weeks.

Arjun Mahto and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

(1)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.4878 of 2014 With W.P.(C) No.732 of 2015

¶3

--------

¶4

Arjun Mahto

¶5

Pokharn Mahto

¶6

Pritam Mahto 4. Lalo Mahto

¶7

Baleshwar Prajapati 6. Komal Sao 7. Sohar Sao 8. Jhaman Sao 9. Rohan Sao

¶8

Suresh Gope 11. Teko Sao 12. Krishna Prasad

¶9

…… Petitioners (In W.P.(C) No.4878 of 2014)

¶10

Mahendra Prasad 2. Bhairo Prasad

¶11

Rajendra Prasad 4. Damar Mahto 5. Sahdeo Prasad 6. Chandeshwar Prasad 7. Parmeshwar Gope 8. Tapeshwar Prasad 9. Udo Mahto

¶12

Dilchand Prasad 11. Suresh Prasad 12. Tulsi Mahto 13. Devendra Kumar 14. Deoki Mahto

¶13

Narayan Mahto

¶14

Nageshwar Ram 17. Jagdish Mahto 18. Lakhan Gope

¶15

Durni Devi

¶16

Umendra Thakur

¶17

Chandeshwar

¶18

…… Petitioners (In W.P.(C) No.732 of 2015) Versus

¶19

The State of Jharkhand

¶20

The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag

¶21

The District Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribag

¶22

The Director, Land Acquisition, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Ranchi

¶23

The Circle Officer, Katkamdag, Hazaribag

¶24

The Union of India

¶25

The East Central Railway (Construction Department), E.C. Railway Hazaribag

¶26

(2)

¶27

National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (NTPC), Hazaribag.

¶28

…… Respondents (in both cases)

¶29

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶31

------For the Petitioners : Mr. Lalan Kumar Singh, Advocate (In both cases) For the Respondent-State : Mr. B.B. Sinha, G.A.-II (In W.P.(C) No.4878 of 2014) For Respondent No.1 to 5: Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Sr. S.C.-III (In W.P.(C) No.732 of 2015) For Respondent-Railway : Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate (In both cases) For Respondent-NTPC : Ms. Monalisha Singh, Advocate : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate (In both cases)

¶32

¶33

11 / Dated 24^th January, 2020

¶34

1. Heard Mr. Lalan Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Railway, Mr. B.B. Sinha, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent-State in W.P.(C) No.4878 of 2014, Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned Sr. S.C.-III appearing on behalf of the respondent-State in W.P.(C) No.732 of 2015 and Ms. Monalisha Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-NTPC.

¶35

2. The petitioners have preferred both the writ petitions for a direction upon the respondents to return the un-utilized or mis-utilized land in view of the provision of Section 101 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 2013).

¶36

3. Mr. Lalan Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the land in question has been acquired in the year 2004. He further submits that the land in question has not been utilized for that purpose for which it was acquired. He further submits that the land was transferred to the respondent-NTPC by the authority concerned. He further submits that in view of the provisions of Act, it is not permissible to transfer the un-utilized land for other purpose. By way of referring Section 101 of the Act, 2013 he submits that in view of the provision, the un-utilized land needs to be transferred to the petitioners. By way of referring Section 99 of the Act, 2013 he submits that no change from the

¶37

(3)

¶38

purpose for which the land is originally sought to be acquired shall be allowed.

¶39

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents fairly submit that the award has already been implemented and the awarded amount has already been disbursed to the awardees. They further submit that both the cases are not covered under the new Act, 2013 because acquisition was made under the old Act and the award has already been satisfied. They further submit that so far as the Section 24 (2) of the new Act, 2013 is concerned is not applicable in the case in hand. They further submit that the nature of acquisition has not been changed as it was required for the purpose of railways and it is being utilized by the Railways.

¶40

5. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents, this Court finds that the dispute cannot be decided by a writ court and further considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, as petitioners have already filed several representations before the authority concerned by way of Annexure-7 series it needs to be decided at the first instance by the authority concerned.

¶41

6. In view of facts the learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to file fresh representation along with all relevant documents before the respondent no.3-The District Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribag within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of a order. If such representation is filed within the aforesaid period, the respondent no.3 shall decide the representation of the petitioners within eight weeks thereafter in accordance with law.

¶42

7. Accordingly, both the writ petitions stand disposed of with the above observations and directions.

¶43

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶44

Madhav/-

Arjun Mahto and Ors. v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun Mahto and Ors. v. the 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anjana Singh Vs Human Resources Department

Sarita Devi and Anr. Vs Tribhuwan Nath Tiwari and Ors.

Sadhana Barnwal Vs Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Pranay Kumar Vs Smt Priyanka Raj

Manmatha Kumar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Nawal Kishore Shaw Vs Manoj Shaw and Ors.