Disposed

Ratan Lal Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC8 Feb 2021WPC/480/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking compensation for raiyati land used for Power Grid Sub-Station. Court refused to examine merits, directing petitioner to file fresh representation with Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad for factual inquiry within three months.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file fresh representation with Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad for factual examination and decision within three months.

Ratan Lal Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 480 of 2020

¶2

Ratan Lal Singh ..... … Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand

¶5

The Principal Secretary, Land and Revenue, Ranchi

¶6

The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad

¶7

Additional Collector, Land and Revenue, Dhanbad

¶8

Special Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad

¶9

Circle Officer, Jharia, District- Dhanbad

¶10

General Manager, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Ranchi

¶11

Chief Engineer, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Dhanbad

¶12

Superintending Engineer, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Dhanbad 10. Executive Engineer, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Dhanbad 11. S.D.O. (Assistant Engineer), Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Dhanbad

¶13

…. …. Respondents

¶14

¶15

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶16

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Shankar Prasad, Advocate For the Resp. nos. 1 to 6 : Mr. Mithilesh Singh, G.A.-IV

¶17

¶18

Order No. 06 Dated: 08.02.2021

¶19

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

¶20

2. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner for occupying his raiyati land pertaining to old khata no. 351 (new khata no. 425), old plot no. 3509 (new plot no. 3472) situated at village-Aamtal, PO- Aamtal, P.S.- Baliyapur, District- Dhanbad (hereinafter to be referred as “the said land”) for construction of Power Grid Sub-Station.

¶21

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s grandfather- Sufal Singh came in rightful possession of the said land by virtue of settlement made in his favour by the ex-landlord- Sheo Prasad Singh on 03.04.1930. The name of Sufal Singh was also entered in the Serista of State Government vide order dated 22.03.1975 passed in Mutation Case No. 938 (V)/ 74-75. The correction slip to this effect was also issued in the name of Sufal Singh. Accordingly, the rent was paid by him and rent receipts were also issued in his favour. Petitioner is one of the legal heirs of late Sufal Singh. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have started construction of Power Grid Sub-Station over the said land without lawfully acquiring the same and making payment of suitable compensation to the petitioner. Several representations have

¶22

- 2 -

¶23

been filed by the petitioner on the present issue before different authorities, however no one has responded to the same which has compelled the petitioner to file the present writ petition.

¶24

4. Mr. Mithilesh Singh, learned G.A.-IV appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 6, submits that the present matter is required to be factually examined by the appropriate authority. Hence, if the petitioner prefers a fresh representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad (the respondent no. 3) along with required documents, decision will be taken in accordance with law.

¶25

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned G.A.-IV appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 6 and keeping in view the nature of the 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. On receipt of the said representation, the respondent no. 3, after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other concerned party as well as on making inquiry, if so required, shall take an informed decision in the matter within a period of three months from the date of filing of the said representation.

¶26

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

¶27

7. I.A No. 615 of 2021 also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶28

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶29

Ritesh/-

Ratan Lal Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratan Lal Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Samad Ali Sapui Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mineshwar Oraon Alias Muneshwar Oraon Alias Minesar Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Basudeo Sao Vs Girija Devi

Ajay Modi Vs State of Jharkhand

Prabhat Kumar Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Rajesh Vs Bank of Baroda through Its Chief Manager Recovery