Disposed

Deepika Tigga v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Jharkhand HC6 Jan 2021WPC/2028/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand disposed of a writ petition seeking directions for determining compensation for land acquired for the Kantatoli Flyover. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation to the District Land Acquisition Officer to resolve her claim to compensation within three months without examining the merits of her case.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to prefer a fresh representation before the respondent no.4. The respondent must take an appropriate decision within three months from t

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2028 of 2020

Deepika Tigga

… Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi.

¶6

Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi.

¶7

Additional Collector, Ranchi.

¶8

District Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi. …. …. Respondents

¶9

¶10

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶11

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Varun Prabhakar, A.C. to G.P. III --------

¶12

04/06.01.2021 The present writ petition is taken up today through Video conferencing.

¶13

At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner the defect, as pointed out by the office, is ignored.

¶14

Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the National Highways Authority of India has wrongly been impleaded as respondent no.5 in the present writ petition. He, accordingly, prays for deleting the respondent no.5 from array of the parties.

¶15

In view of the said submission, let the respondent no.5 be deleted from the cause title of the writ petition.

¶16

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the District Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi - respondent no.4 to determine compensation with respect to land appertaining to R.S. Plot Nos.1170, 1171, 1172, 1173 and 1174 under R.S. Khata No.1369, MouzaKonka, District-Ranchi measuring an area of 8 decimals as well as for the building/structure standing over the part of the said land which is being acquired for the purpose of construction of Kantatoli Flyover, Ranchi.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that land appertaining to R.S. Plot Nos.1170, 1171, 1172, 1173 and 1174 situated within Ward No.4 of Ranchi Municipal Corporation is recorded in the name of Bandhu Oraon and others. The petitioner is one of the legal heirs of the recorded tenant and her name has also been mutated in the revenue records. She has also been paying applicable taxes to the Ranchi Municipal Corporation for the land/building in question. After issuance of notification under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter

¶18

- 2 -

¶19

to be referred as the “Act, 2013”) for acquisition of land for construction of Kantatoli Flyover, Ranchi, a notice was issued on 3^rd May, 2018 to Ajay Pandey and others under Section 37(2) of the Act, 2013 calling upon them to appear in Land Acquisition Case No.22 of 2016-17 before the district land acquisition section Ranchi Collectorate, Ranchi along with related documents to receive the compensation. Prior to issuance of the said notice, the petitioner had made an application in the office of the respondent no.4 that her name should have been mentioned in place of Ajay Pandey who has been in permissive possession of the part of the land in question. The grievance of the petitioner is that even after filling up the required form and submission of relevant documents before the respondent no.4, no decision has been taken by the said respondent with regard to the petitioner’s claim to receive compensation in lieu of acquisition of the land in question.

¶20

Mr. Varun Prabhakar, A.C. to learned G.P.-III appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that since the present matter requires factual determination, if the petitioner prefers a fresh representation on the present issue before the respondent no.4, an appropriate decision will be taken by the said respondent.

¶21

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the prayer made in the present writ petition, without entering into the merit of the case, the petitioner is given liberty to prefer a fresh representation on the present issue before the respondent no.4 along with relevant documents. On receipt of the said representation, the respondent no.4 after calling for the relevant records and on providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/her representative, shall take an appropriate informed decision in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of filing of the representation.

¶22

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

¶23

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶24

Rohit

Deepika Tigga v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepika Tigga 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ve Commercial Vehicle Limited through Authorized Representative Laxman Singh Raghuwanshi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lal Badrinath Shahdeo Vs Revenue Department

Boulevard Enterprises through Its Partner Namely Sandeep Murarka Vs the State of Jharkhand

Salim Mian Vs Ahmad Hussain And Ors.

Permila Devi Alias Pramila Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Subodh Kumar Prasad Vs Jahrkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited through Its Chairman