Disposed

Ashwani Poddar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC25 Feb 2021WPC/108/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench disposed of a writ petition filed by displaced persons seeking issuance of a 'Vikash Pustika'. The court directed the competent authority to decide the claim within three months without examining the merits of the case. The petition was accordingly disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Additional Director, Land Acquisition & Rehabilitation to decide the claim for issuance of 'Vikash Pustika' within three months.

Ashwani Poddar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(C) No. 108 of 2021

¶4

Ashwani Poddar

¶5

Ratan Poddar

¶6

Suku Poddar

¶7

... … Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Jharkhand

¶10

The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶11

The Special Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶12

The Administrator, Subernrekha Multipurpose Project, Adityapur, East Singhbhum

¶13

The Additional Director, Land Acquisition & Rehabilitation, Subernrekha Multipurpose Project, Adityapur, East Singhbhum

¶14

The Rehabilitation Officer No. 2, Subernrekha Multipurpose Project, Adityapur, East Singhbhum … … Respondents

¶15

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶16

For the Petitioners : Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rahul Saboo, SC-I -----

¶17

Order No. 02

¶18

Dated: 25.02.2021

¶19

The present writ petition is taken up today through Video conferencing.

¶20

The instant writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 5 – the Additional Director, Land Acquisition & Rehabilitation, Subernrekha Multipurpose Project, Adityapur, East Singhbhum to issue “Vikash Pustika” in favour of the petitioners for which they have already applied by filling up prescribed form in pursuance of which the respondent no. 6 has also made recommendation.

¶21

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the displaced persons as their land and house were acquired for the purpose of Subernrekha Multipurpose Project during the lifetime of their father Prafulya Poddar, who subsequently died on 01.11.2014 leaving behind three sons i.e., the petitioners herein. It is further submitted that after acquisition of their land and house for the purpose of said project, the petitioners had applied before the respondent no. 6 for issuance of “Vikash Pustika” in the year 1986

¶22

¶23

itself, however, till date, no separate “Vikash Pustika” have been issued in favour of the petitioners. An enquiry was conducted in this regard by the respondent no. 6, who also made recommendation for issuance of “Vikash Pustika” in favour of the petitioners, however, the respondent no. 5, who is the competent authority to take decision in this regard, has not yet issued “Vikash Pustika” in favour of the petitioners.

¶24

3. Mr. Rahul Saboo, the learned SC-I appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the present matter will be factually examined by the respondent no. 5 and an appropriate decision with respect to issuance of “Vikash Pustika” as claimed by the petitioners in the present writ petition will be taken within a timeframe.

¶25

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of prayer made in the writ petition, without entering into the merit of the case, the respondent no. 5 is directed to take decision with regard to the petitioners’ claim for issuance of “Vikash Pustika” in their favour within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶26

5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid direction.

¶27

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶28

Manish

Ashwani Poddar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashwani Poddar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiva Protection Force P Ltd. through Its Managing Director Rajesh Nidhi Vs State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Dilip Prasad Jaiswal Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jai Prakash Chourasia Vs the State of Jharkhand

S G Projects Ltd. through Its Director Ajay Singh Vs Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. through Its Managing Director

Lal Abhay Nath Sahdeo Alias Lal Abhay Nath Shahdeo Vs the State of Jharkhand

Simoti Devi Vs The Union Of India Through The Chief Revenue Officer Central Coal Fields Ltd.