Disposed

Bablu Kumbhakar v. the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner

Jharkhand HC16 Aug 2021WPC/2218/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand directed the District Land Acquisition Officer to refer a dispute between petitioners and another land claimant to the Principal Civil Court for adjudication regarding compensation under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956, following earlier orders in related writ petitions.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 3 to refer the land compensation dispute to the Principal Civil Court under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 within two months.

Bablu Kumbhakar Vs the State of Jharkhand through the… — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 2218 of 2020

¶3

Bablu Kumbhakar

¶4

Gaya Ram Kumbhakar

¶5

..... … Petitioners

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

The State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad

¶8

The Circle Officer, Govindpur, District- Dhanbad

¶9

The District Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad

¶10

The National Highways Authority of India, New Delhi through its Chairman 5. The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, PIU Durgapur, P.S.- Durgapur, District- Burdwan (West Bengal)

¶11

Gopal Kumbhakar

¶12

…. …. Respondents

¶13

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶14

For the Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Kumar Ram, Advocate For the Resp. Nos. 1 to 3 : Ms. Rashmi Lal, A.C. to Sr.S.C.-III For the Resp. Nos. 4 & 5 : Mrs. Sweety Topno, Advocate

¶15

Order No. 05 Dated: 16.08.2021

¶16

The present case is taken up today through video conferencing.

¶17

2. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 3- the District Land Acquisition Officer (wrongly written as “the Land Acquisition Officer” in the cause title of the writ petition), Dhanbad to pass an order on the objection preferred by the father of the petitioner no. 1 namely Jogindar Kumbhakar and the petitioner no. 2 before the said respondent and to refer the dispute to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction for adjudication under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act, 1956”) with regard to payment of compensation in lieu of acquisition of 4.0162 decimals out of 15 decimals of land appertaining to Mouza- Kharkabad, Mouza No. 222, Sabik Khata No.-59 (new khata no. 286), plot no.-1185/1188 (new plot no. 2100) as the award for the same has been prepared and amount thereof has been disbursed to the respondent no. 6 despite the fact that the petitioners being equal co-sharers are also the lawful claimants over the same.

¶18

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, submits that similar writ petitions being W.P.(C) No. 1376 of 2018 and W.P.(C) No. 7339 of 2017 have already been disposed of by this Court vide orders dated 13.12.2019 and 21.01.2020 respectively directing the respondent no. 3 to pass appropriate order so as to refer the dispute raised by the petitioners to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction under Section 3H(4) of the Act, 1956.

¶19

4. Ms. Rashmi Lal, learned A.C. to Sr.S.C.-III appearing on behalf of the

¶20

- 2 -

¶21

respondent nos. 1 to 3, and Mrs. Sweety Topno, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, jointly submit that the present writ petition may be disposed of in terms with the orders dated 13.12.2019 and 21.01.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1376 of 2018 and W.P.(C) No. 7339 of 2017 respectively.

¶22

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of prayer made by the petitioners in the present writ petition, without entering into the merit of their claim, the respondent no. 3 is directed to take up the petitioners’ claim and pass an appropriate order with regard to referring the said dispute to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction for adjudication under Section 3H(4) of the Act, 1956, after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as the respondent no. 6, within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶23

6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶24

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶25

Ritesh/

Bablu Kumbhakar v. the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bablu Kumbhakar v. the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Digvijay Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chhote Lal Marandi Alias Chote Lal Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jiwan Kumar Yadav Alias Jivan Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prasadi Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Department of Revenue and Land Reforms

Shiv Ratan Prasad Gupta Vs State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Samsad Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand