Dismissed

Narayan Rabidas v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Revenue and Land Reforms Department

Jharkhand HC11 Feb 2021WPC/454/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking directions for adequate compensation for his raiyati land acquired by NHAI without following due process. The court refused to decide on merits and instead granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority with supporting documents for a decision within three months.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to prefer application before the District Land Acquisition Officer with supporting documents; decision to be given within three months after hearing.

Narayan Rabidas Vs the State of Jharkhand through the… — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.454 of 2020

Narayan Rabidas

..... … Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Revenue and Land Reforms Department (Directorate of Land Acquisition), Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶6

Deputy Commissioner, Giridih.

¶7

District Land Acquisition Officer, Giridih.

¶8

Circle Officer, Dumri, Giridih.

¶9

National Highways Authority of India, Ministry of Road, Transport & National Highways, Dhanbad.

¶10

Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, NHAI, Dhanbad.

¶11

…. …. Respondents

¶12

¶13

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶14

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhaiya Vishwajeet Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anish Mishra, A.C. to G.A. I For the NHAI : Ms. Khushboo Kataruka, Advocate --------

¶15

05/11.02.2021 The present writ petition is taken up today through Video conferencing.

¶16

At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects as pointed out by the office, are ignored.

¶17

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to pay adequate compensation to the petitioner whose raiyati land measuring an area of 52.30 decimals appertaining to Khata No.148, Plot No.3091/2 situated at village Kulgo, Thana No.100, P.S. Dumari, District Giridih and the house standing thereupon have been acquired, and the possession of the same has already been taken by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) for widening of N.H.-2.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had applied for settlement of Gairmazarua Khas land before the Circle Officer, Dumri-the respondent no.4 and thereafter Settlement Case No.36 of 198990 was initiated and on following the due procedure, land measuring an area of 1.50 acres situated within Dumari Circle, Village Kulgo, P.S. Dumri Plot No.3091/2 Khata No.148 was settled in favour of the petitioner and ‘Parwana’ to that effect was issued to him on 15^th December, 1989. Accordingly, the petitioner came in possession of the said land and his name was also mutated in the revenue records. Since then he was paying the rent and the rent-receipts were also issued to him till the revenue year 2014-15. It is further submitted that the petitioner by putting hard labour used to grow several crops over the said land for his livelihood and also constructed a house for his shelter. The respondent no.5 issued Notification No.का. आ.

¶19

-2-

¶20

602 (अ) dated 11^th March, 2013 under Section 3(ii) of the National Highways Act, 1956 for acquisition of land including part of the petitioner’s land for the purpose of widening of N.H.-2 which was published in the Gazette of India Extra Ordinary Part-II and was also published in daily Hindi newspaper Dhanbad edition on 29^th June, 2013. The said notification also contained Plot No.3091 of aforesaid Khata measuring an area of 0.1955 acre. The grievance of the petitioner is that said respondents without initiating any acquisition case and without making any payment of compensation, took possession of the part of the said land measuring an area of 65 feet x 350 feet i.e., 52.30 decimals for widening of N.H.-2 and also demolished the house standing over the same. The State authorities completely lost sight of the fact that the said land was lawfully settled in favour of the petitioner by the competent authorities including the Circle Officer, Dumri in the year 1989 and the petitioner was also treated as raiyat of the said land. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the petitioner represented before the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 seeking due compensation for acquisition of the said part of his land, however, the same remained unresponded. Under the said compelling circumstance, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

¶21

Learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 4 as well as respondent nos.5 and 6 jointly submit that the present matter is required to be factually examined by the competent authority. Hence, if the petitioner prefers an application before the District Land Acquisition Officer, Giridih (the respondent no.3)-competent authority under the National Highways Act, an appropriate decision will be taken in accordance with law.

¶22

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the prayer made by the petitioner in the present writ petition, without entering into the merit of the case, the petitioner is given liberty to prefer an application before the respondent no.3 on the present issue along with the supporting documents. On receipt of the said application, the said respondent after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/his representative, shall take an appropriate informed decision in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of filing of the application.

¶23

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

¶24

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶25

Rohit

Narayan Rabidas v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Revenue and Land Reforms Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayan Rabidas v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Revenue and Land Reforms Department

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

Laddha Ram Mohnani Vs the State of Jharkhand

Surendra Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner

Bagha Singh Alias Subash Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shankar Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sourav Kumar Verma Minor Represented through His Father Sri Shyam Kishore Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Human Resource Development Department

Kartik Chandra Nandi Vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors.