Disposed

Tara Devi v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Jharkhand HC15 Feb 2021WPC/1339/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged compensation for land acquired for NH-2 widening, alleging misclassification of land as agricultural and non-assessment of residential building. Court avoided merits and directed petitioner to file a fresh application invoking the statutory arbitration mechanism.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file a fresh application under Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 for arbitration; respondent directed to refer the issue within 30 days.

Tara Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief… — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 1339 of 2020

¶3

Tara Devi ….. Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi

¶6

The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih

¶7

The Land Acquisition Officer, Giridih-cum-Competent Authority, Giridih

¶8

….. Respondents

¶9

----- CORAM

¶10

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶11

----For the Petitioner: Mr. A. K. Sahani For the Respondents: Mr. Suresh Kumar, S.C (L&C)-II

¶12

¶13

04/15.02.2021 The case is taken up through Video Conferencing.

¶14

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to consider the petitioner’s objection with respect to the amount of compensation for the land as well as the residential building standing thereupon appertaining to Khata No.75, Plot No. 1061B, Village-Kulgo, Thana No. 100, P.SDumri, District-Giridih, measuring an area of 0.025 acre which were acquired by the respondents for widening of NH-2.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have acquired the said land including the residential building standing over the same for widening of NH-2. The respondent No.3 initiated L.A. Case No. 24/2014-15 wherein Award No. 415 was prepared. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued notice dated 24.01.2017 to receive compensation of Rs.30,50,210/- for acquisition of the said land. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the notice dated 24.01.2017 issued by the respondent No.3, the nature of the land has been shown as agricultural instead of residential. Moreover, no award has been prepared by the respondent No.3 for the residential building standing over the said land. The petitioner represented the respondent No.3 on 04.07.2014 as well as the concerned Project Officer of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1956’) on 10.01.2018 in this regard, however, no action was taken by the said authorities which has compelled the petitioner to file the present writ petition.

¶16

Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned S.C (L&C)-II appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that if the petitioner prefers a fresh application under Section 3(G)(5) of the Act, 1956 before the respondent No.3 on the present issue, appropriate steps shall be taken by the said respondent to refer the matter to the arbitrator for taking decision on the petitioner’s claim for enhancement of compensation.

¶17

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the prayer made by the petitioner in the present writ petition, without entering into the merit of the case, the petitioner is given liberty to prefer a fresh application under Section 3(G)(5) of the Act, 1956 before the respondent No.3 on the present issue. On receipt of such application, the respondent No.3 shall take appropriate steps for referring the matter to the arbitrator within a period of thirty days from the date of filing of the said application.

¶18

The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid liberty and direction.

¶19

(RAJESH SHANKAR, J)

¶20

Satish/-

Tara Devi v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tara Devi v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

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

Sohan Ravidas Vs the State of Jharkhand

Puja Kumari Vs Jitendra Kumar Mahto

Jitendra Hembrom Vs the Eastern Coalfield Limited Represented through the General Manager

Ram Kumar Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jai Ram Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lal Babu Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand