Allowed

Simoti Devi v. The Union Of India Through The Chief Revenue Officer Central Coal Fields Ltd.

Jharkhand HC25 Feb 2021WPC/5152/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the Tribunal's order rejecting restoration of a reference case filed for enhancement of compensation under the Coal Bearing Areas Act. Court set aside the rejection order and directed restoration of the case to be decided on merit.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 04.06.2016 set aside; Reference Case No. 11/2008 restored to original file for disposal on merit within four months.

Simoti Devi Vs The Union Of India Through The Chief… — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(C) No. 5152 of 2016

¶4

Simoti Devi

¶5

Kishore Kr. Manjhi

¶6

Ajay Kisku

¶7

Karan Kisku 5. Kanhai Manjhi 6. Babulal Manjhi @ Bijendra Kisku

¶8

Talo Manjhi

¶9

Dhaniram Manjhi

¶10

Bhuneshwar Manjhi 10. Mahadeo Manjhi 11. Ravi Manjhi 12. Rajesh Manjhi 13. Roshan Manjhi 14. Sita Ram Manjhi 15. Phagu Manjhi 16. Chhotaka Manjhi 17. Binod Manjhi 18. Ganga Manjhi 19. Mahadeo Manjhi 20. Sawana Manjhi ….. Petitioners Versus

¶11

The Union of India, through the Chief Revenue Officer, Central Coal Fields Ltd., Ranchi ….. Respondent -----

¶12

CORAM

¶13

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶14

----For the Petitioners: Mr. Mungal Lal Kr. Chitra For the C.C.L: Mr. H. P. Singh -----

¶15

08/25.02.2021 The case is taken up through Video Conferencing.

¶16

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 04.06.2016 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-1-cum-Presiding Officer, Tribunal, Ranchi in Misc. Case No. 01/2013 by which the petitioners’ prayer for restoration of Claim Case No. 11/2008 was rejected.

¶17

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

¶18

It appears that on the application of the petitioners, Reference Case No. 11/2008 was registered before the learned Court below under Section 17(2) of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957

¶19

¶20

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1957’) seeking enhancement of compensation assessed by the respondent-CCL. Since no ‘Pairavi’ was made on behalf of the petitioner before the Court, the said case was dismissed for nonprosecution on 14.07.2011. Thereafter, Misc. Case No. 01/2013 was filed on behalf of the petitioners for restoration of the said case in which notice was issued to the respondent-CCL. It however appears from the impugned order dated 04.06.2016 that both the sides failed to adduce any evidence in the said case, which was finally placed for argument and after hearing learned counsel for the respondent-CCL, learned Court below refused to restore Reference Case No. 11/2008 vide the impugned order dated 04.06.2016.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similar case i.e. Misc. Petition No. 02/2013 filed for restoration of Claim Case No. 10/2008, which was also dismissed for non-prosecution by the learned Court below vide order dated 14.07.2011, was restored to its original file vide order dated 30.03.2015. A copy of the order dated 30.03.2015 passed in Misc. Petition No. 02/2013 has been annexed as Anneuxure-2 to the writ petition.

¶22

It is not understood as to why such disparity was made by the leaned Court below particularly keeping in view that Misc. Petition No. 02/2013 filed by the claimants for restoration of the original claim case was already allowed by the same Court previously i.e. on 30.03.2015. If the learned Court below was not inclined to restore Reference Case No. 11/2008, he should have at least discussed the circumstances under which another restoration case i.e. Misc. Petition No. 02/2013 was ordered to be restored.

¶23

Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that since the petitioners have claimed enhancement of compensation for acquisition of their land by the respondent-CCL under the Act, 1957, they should be given an opportunity to contest their claim on merit. Hence, the impugned order dated 04.06.2016 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-1-cum-Presiding Officer, Tribunal, Ranchi in Misc. Case No. 01/2013 is set aside. Reference Case No. 11/2008 is restored to

¶24

¶25

its original file. The concerned Court below is directed to take up the said case and to decide the same on merit in accordance of law within a period of four

¶26

months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶27

Both the sides shall cooperate with the learned Court below in timely

¶28

disposal of the said case.

¶29

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

¶30

(RAJESH SHANKAR, J)

¶31

Satish/-

Simoti Devi v. The Union Of India Through The Chief Revenue Officer Central Coal Fields Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Simoti Devi v. The Union Of India Through The Chief Revenue Officer Central Coal Fields Ltd.

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

Shiva Protection Force P Ltd. through Its Managing Director Rajesh Nidhi Vs State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Dilip Prasad Jaiswal Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jai Prakash Chourasia Vs the State of Jharkhand

S G Projects Ltd. through Its Director Ajay Singh Vs Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. through Its Managing Director

Ashwani Poddar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lal Abhay Nath Sahdeo Alias Lal Abhay Nath Shahdeo Vs the State of Jharkhand