Disposed

Kishore Kumar Sahu v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Pr Secretary Deptt of Rural Development

Jharkhand HC11 Jan 2021WPC/3690/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the construction of a public road over private land without following acquisition procedures, violating Article 14. The court did not decide on merits but directed the State to consider a fresh representation with supporting documents and seek compensation under the 2013 Act within three months.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file a fresh representation to the Land Acquisition Officer; direction to decide on the claim for compensation within three months.

Kishore Kumar Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its… — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 3690 of 2020

¶3

Kishore Kumar Sahu ….. Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand, through its Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Ranchi

¶6

The Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh

¶7

The Land Acquisition Officer, Ramgarh

¶8

The Executive Engineer, Rural Development, Ramgarh

¶9

The Assistant Engineer, Rural Development, Ramgarh

….. Respondents

CORAM

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶14

¶15

For the Petitioner: Mr. Mitul Kumar For the State: Mr. Shashank Saurabh, A.C to G.P-III

¶16

¶17

04/11.01.2021 The case is taken up through Video Conferencing.

¶18

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to show cause as to how and under what authority they have proceeded to construct a public road over the Raiyati land of the petitioner appertaining to Khata No. 59, Plot No. 555, Mouza-Barlanga, Mouza No. 88, P.SBarlanga (now), Circle-Gola, District-Ramgarh, measuring an area of 1 Acre 46 Decimals without following any procedure for acquisition of the said land and also to show cause as to why the impugned action of the respondents be not declared to be arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to compensate the petitioner as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the grandson of one Late Kali Charan Saw, who had purchased the said land from Kunwar Mauleshwar Narayan Singh (the then Padma Estate Raja) by virtue of registered sale deed dated 21.08.1947 and since then he was in peaceful possession of the same. It is further submitted that till now there has been no partition of the said land amongst the family members of Late Kali Charan Saw and the same is still undivided and the petitioner is one of the co-sharers of the

¶20

same. It is further submitted that despite the said fact, a public road connecting Village-Nemra to Village-Barlanga bisecting the land in question was constructed at the instance of the respondent Nos. 4 & 5. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondent Nos. 4 & 5, the petitioner represented before various authorities seeking lawful compensation for the said land used in construction of the public road, however, no action was taken over the same which has compelled the petitioner to prefer the present writ petition.

¶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 file a fresh representation on the present issue before the respondent No.3 along with the supporting documents. On receipt of such representation, the respondent No.3, after making due enquiry and providing due opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties, shall take an informed decision on the present issue within a period of three months from the date of filing of the said representation.

¶22

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

¶23

(RAJESH SHANKAR, J)

¶24

Satish/-

Kishore Kumar Sahu v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Pr Secretary Deptt of Rural Development

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishore Kumar Sahu v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Pr Secretary Deptt of Rural Development

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

Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs Bodhraj Sharma

Bhim Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mantu Modak Vs Fatik Chandra Modak

Rajesh Kumar Mourya Vs the State of Jharkhand through District Land Acquisition Officer

Ms Vinod Kumar Jain Through Its Partner Vinod Kumar Jain Vs Road Construction

Dr Mohan Jha Vs the State of Jharkhand through Inspector General of Registration