Disposed

Parameshwar Kumar Nayak v. the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Jharkhand HC14 Jan 2021WPC/3551/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking compensation for acquired land disposed of on merits without. Court granted liberty to make fresh representation to the District Land Acquisition Officer for an informed decision within three months and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Liberty given to petitioner to make fresh representation before respondent no. 3 with documents. Respondent no. 3 directed to decide within three months after hearing.

Parameshwar Kumar Nayak Vs the State of Jharkhand through… — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(C) No. 3551 of 2020

¶4

Parameshwar Kumar Nayak

¶5

… … Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶8

The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue & Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶9

The District Land Acquisition Officer, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro

¶10

The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro

¶11

The Circle Officer, Chas, Bokaro

¶12

The National Highway Authority of India through its Project Director, Dhanbad … … Respondents

¶13

… … Respondents

¶14

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶15

----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, Advocate For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 : Mr. Kishore Kr Singh, SC-VI For the respondent-NHAI : Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, Advocate -----

¶16

Order No. 02 Dated: 14.01.2021

¶17

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

¶18

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to prepare an award and to make payment of suitable compensation for the land appertaining to Khata No. 83, Plot Nos. 1200, 1204, 1208 and 1210, Mouza- Pupunki, Thana No. 24, Circle-Chas, District-Bokaro, which has been acquired for expansion of NH-32. The petitioner has also made further related prayers.

¶19

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a raiyat of the aforesaid land which was purchased by his grandfather-late Purn Chandra Nayak in the year 1927. The jamabandi of the said land is still running in the name of late Purn Chandra Nayak. It is further submitted that though the respondents have utilised the aforesaid land of the petitioner for expansion of NH32, yet he has not been paid any compensation in lieu thereof. The petitioner has already represented before the respondent no. 3 – the District Land Acquisition Officer, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro on the present issue, however, the same has not yet been responded, which has compelled the petitioner to file the present writ petition.

¶20

¶21

3. Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 6, submits that the expansion of NH-32 is not being carried out by the NHAI, rather the same is being done by the concerned National Highway Division of the Department of Road Construction, Government of Jharkhand.

¶22

4. Mr. Kishore Kumar Singh, the learned SC-VI appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 5, submits that since the matter is required to be factually examined, if the petitioner prefers a fresh representation before the respondent no. 3, an appropriate informed decision in this regard will be taken by the said respondent.

¶23

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of prayer made in the writ petition, without entering into the merit of the case, the petitioner is given liberty to prefer a fresh representation before the respondent no. 3 along with the supporting documents on the present issue. On receipt of the said representation, the respondent no. 3 after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as other concerned parties, shall take an informed decision in this regard preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of the representation.

¶24

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

¶25

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶26

Manish

Parameshwar Kumar Nayak v. the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parameshwar Kumar Nayak v. the State of Jharkhand through the 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

Ashwani Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ms Darshana Stone Works through Its Partner Satish Kumar Das Vs State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Mines

Janak Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pradip Kumar Khatuwala Vs Nagar Parishad Jhumri Telaiya through the Admintrator

Ms Darshana Stone Works Represented through Its Partner Ram Lakhan Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Ram Sewak Vs the State of Jharkhand