Disposed

Gautam Kumar Nag v. the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner

Jharkhand HC3 Feb 2021WPC/2785/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Respondent No.3 to resolve a dispute over compensation share under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956, instead of deciding the matter in the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Liberty given to petitioner to prefer a fresh representation with Respondent No.3 to refer the dispute to the Principal Civil Court under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956.

Gautam Kumar Nag Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy… — Partition | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 2785 of 2020

¶3

Gautam Kumar Nag ….. Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand, through the Deputy Commissioner, SeraikellaKharswan

¶6

The Additional Collector, Seraikella-Kharswan

¶7

The District Land Acquisition Officer-cum-competent Authority under NHAI Act, 1956, Seraikella-Kharswan

¶8

The Circle Officer, Chandil, Seraikella-Kharswan

¶9

National Highway Authority of India, through its Chairman, New Delhi

¶10

The Project Director, National Highway Authority of India, Project Implementation Unit, Jamshedpur, Seraikella-Kharswan

¶11

….. Respondents ----- CORAM

¶12

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶13

----For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey For the State: Mr. Devesh Krishna, S.C (Mines)-III For NHAI: Ms. Sweety Topno -----

¶14

03/03.02.2021 The case is taken up through Video Conferencing.

¶15

At the request of leaned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed

¶16

out by the office are ignored.

¶17

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of show cause to the concerned respondent as to under what circumstances, the entire compensation amount of Rs.26,84,950/- against acquisition of the land as well as the building standing over the same appertaining to Khata No. 260, Plot No. 1596, MouzaRaghunathpur, Thana No. 288, Circle-Nimdih, District-Seraikella-Kharswan, measuring an area of 78.89 sq. mtr. for widening of NH-32 has been paid to Anupam Kumar Nag-brother of the petitioner. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to forthwith decide the objection filed by the petitioner on 16.08.2019 in D.L.A. Case No. 20/2014-15 making claim of his share in the said compensation amount against acquisition of the said land and the building standing over the same.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant documents available on record.

¶19

The petitioner appears to be aggrieved with non-payment of part compensation against the acquisition of the building standing over the said land

¶20

as according to him, he is the co-sharer of the said property. He has further contended that the notice issued in D.L.A Case No. 20/2014-15 shows the name of the petitioner’s brother-Anupam Kumar Nag and others. As such, the respondent authorities have illegally paid the entire compensation amount to the said brother of the petitioner.

¶21

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 stating inter alia that the land acquisition proceeding being D.L.A Case No. 20/2014-15 was initiated with respect to the said land including the building standing thereon for widening of NH-32. After preparation of the award, an amount of Rs.26,84,950/- by way of compensation has been paid to the petitioner’s brother-Anupam Kumar Nag, son of Late Ganesh Chandra Nag.

¶22

Considering the fact that the petitioner has claimed part compensation for acquisition of the building situated over the land in question being the cosharer of the same, without entering into the merit of the claim, he is given liberty to prefer a fresh representation before the respondent No.3 on the present issue. On receipt of such representation, the respondent No.3 shall take steps within a period of one month from the date of filing of the said representation to refer the dispute under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 to the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction within whose jurisdiction the said land is situated for taking appropriate decision.

¶23

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

¶24

(RAJESH SHANKAR, J)

¶25

Satish/-

Gautam Kumar Nag v. the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gautam Kumar Nag 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms N P Construction Throguh Its Proprietor Shri Pramod Singh Vs Steel Authority of India Ltd. through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Ramji Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary Ranchi

Barun Konar Vs Sameena Jahan

Kali Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Karmu Ram Nayak Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Ms Kamalalaya Colour Lab Studio through Its Authorised Signatory Cum Manager Sri Subhendu Neogi Vs State Bank of India through Assistant General Manager Stressed Assets Management Branch