Disposed

Chittaranjan Singh Deo v. State of Jharkhand through Arun Kumar the Secretary Water Resource Deptt

Jharkhand HC19 Feb 2021Cont.(Cvl)/598/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In contempt proceedings, the Court dropped the case against the State following a supplementary show cause affidavit alleging compliance of a previous order. Petitioners were granted liberty to challenge the offsetting authority's letter rejecting their claims.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings dropped; liberty granted to petitioners to challenge the officer's letter rejecting their rehabilitation claims.

Chittaranjan Singh Deo Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No.598 of 2019

¶2

¶3

Chittaranjan Singh Deo

¶4

Manoranjan Deo

¶5

Niranjan Singh

¶6

Bindu Bala Devi

¶7

Bhakt Ranjan Deo

¶8

Ashwini Kumar Deo

¶9

Ashit Kumar Singh.

¶10

.......... Petitioners.

¶11

-Versus-

¶12

The State of Jharkhand, through Arun Kumar, Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Ranchi.

¶13

Chhavi Ranjan, Deputy Commissioner, Seraikela-Kharsawan.

¶14

Brajmohan Kumar, Administrator, Subarnarekha Multipurpose Project, Adityapur, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum.

¶15

Additional Director, Land Acquisition Rehabilitation, Adityapur, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum.

¶16

Special Land Acquisition officer, Special Land Acquisition Office no.2, Subarnarekha Project, Mango Town, District East Singhbhum.

¶17

.......... Opp. Parties.

¶18

¶19

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶20

----For the Petitioners : Mr. Vishal Kumar Rai, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rohit, A.C. to A.A.G.I -----

¶21

Order No.10 Date: 19.02.2021

¶22

This case is taken up through video conferencing.

¶23

The present contempt case has been filed for initiating contempt proceeding against the opposite parties for alleged wilful disobedience of the order dated 21^st December, 2018 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.3825 of 2018.

¶24

Pursuant to the order dated 5^th February, 2021, a supplementary show cause affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties, sworn by Mr. Rajiv Gari, Rehabilitation Officer-2, Subarnarekha Project, Chandil, annexing a copy of letter no.134 dated 3^rd February, 2021 issued by him to the Additional Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Subarnarekha Project, Adityapur. As per the said letter, the claims of the petitioners have been considered by the said authority, the reasons thereof are as under:-

¶25

So far as the petitioner no.1 is concerned, Vikas Pustika has not been issued to him, as he neither submitted matriculation certificate showing his actual date of birth nor a certificate relating to age issued by the office of the Sub Divisional Officer.

¶26

-2-

¶27

So far as the petitioner no.2 is concerned, recommendation in his favour has already been made for issuance of Vikas Pustika.

¶28

Since the petitioner nos.3, 5, 6 and 7 were found to be minor at the time of issuance of notification, they have not been found entitled for issuance of Vikas Pustika.

¶29

So far as the petitioner no.4 is concerned, Vikas Pustika was earlier issued in the name of her husband and after his demise, she is entitled for Vikas Pustika on behalf of her husband and hence no separate Vikas Pustika is required to be issued in her favour.

¶30

In view of the aforesaid reasons assigned in letter dated 3^rd February, 2021, it is submitted by Mr. Rohit, learned A.C. to A.A.G.I, that the order dated 21^st December, 2018 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.3825 of 2018 has now been complied and hence the present contempt proceeding as against opposite parties may be dropped.

¶31

Mr. Vishal Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners, whose claim for issuance of Vikas Pustika have been rejected by the Rehabilitation Officer-2, Subarnarekha Project, Chandil vide letter no.134 dated 3^rd February, 2021, may be given liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law.

¶32

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view that the order dated 21^st December, 2018 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.3825 of 2018 has now been complied, I see no reason to further proceed in the matter. The contempt proceeding as against the opposite parties is hereby dropped.

¶33

The present contempt case is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶34

The petitioner nos.1, 3, 5, 6 & 7 are, however, at liberty to take appropriate recourse against the letter no.134 dated 3^rd February, 2021 issued by the Rehabilitation Officer-2, Subarnarekha Project, Chandil as permissible under law.

¶35

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶36

Sanjay/

Chittaranjan Singh Deo v. State of Jharkhand through Arun Kumar the Secretary Water Resource Deptt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chittaranjan Singh Deo v. State of Jharkhand through Arun Kumar the Secretary Water Resource Deptt

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

Bishwanath Chatterjee Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anil Garg Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ms Dev Prabha Construction Pvt. Ltd. through Its Authorized Signatory Vikash Kumar Singh Vs the Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Jai Prakash Ojha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Roya Ram Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Praveen Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand