Disposed

Jai Ram Sahu v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC15 Feb 2021WPC/211/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition concerning unfair compensation payment for land acquisition for highway widening, the court directed the District Land Acquisition Officer to refer the petitioner's claim to an arbitrator under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 within one month.

What did the court decide?

Liberty preferred to apply to the District Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to arbitrator under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 within one month.

Jai Ram Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 211 of 2021

Jai Ram Sahu

..... … Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi

¶7

District Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi

¶8

Project Director, National Highway Authority of India, Ashok Nagar, Ranchi

¶9

…. …. Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner :- Mr. A.K.Sahani, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-II For the NHAI :- Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, Advocate

¶11

Order No. 03 Dated: 15.02.2021

¶12

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

¶13

2. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 3-the District Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi to take decision with regard to appropriate compensation to be paid to the petitioner with respect to his house and shop existing on the part of plot no. 1295, Khata no. 119, Mouza- Nagri, District- Ranchi measuring an area of 0.004 acre (hereinafter to be referred as “the said land”) which is being acquired for the purpose of widening of NH-23.

¶14

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid land of the petitioner is being acquired by the state government for the purpose of widening of NH-23 under the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 (in short “the Act, 1956”). A notice was issued to the petitioner by the respondent no. 3 on 29.07.2019 calling upon him to raise objection (if any) in respect of the said proposal for acquisition of land. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been paid compensation for the residential house and shop situated over the said land on less valuation. He has already represented before the respondent authorities raising his said grievance, however no one has responded to the same which has compelled the petitioner to file the present writ petition.

¶15

4. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-II appearing on behalf of the State respondents as well as Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, learned counsel for the respondent-NHAI, jointly submit that if the petitioner has grievance with respect to payment of less compensation for acquisition of his land/structure, he may prefer a fresh application before the respondent no. 3 for referring the matter to the arbitrator under Section 3-G(5) of the Act, 1956.

¶16

- 2 -

¶17

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the prayer made in the writ petition, without entering into the merit of the case, the petitioner is given liberty to prefer a fresh application before the respondent no. 3 on the present issue. On receipt of the said application, the respondent no. 3 shall take appropriate steps to refer the matter to the arbitrator for his decision on the petitioner’s claim in terms with the provisions of Section 3-G(5) of the Act, 1956 within a period of one month from the date of filing of the said application.

¶18

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

¶19

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶20

Ritesh/-

Jai Ram Sahu v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Ram Sahu 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

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

Lal Babu Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Tara Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary