Disposed

Bishwanath Chatterjee v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC18 Feb 2021WPC/83/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the failure of the CCL to decide the petitioner's claim for employment and compensation regarding land acquired for mining. The court directed the General Manager to verify records and render a decision within four months.

What did the court decide?

The respondent no. 8 is directed to verify records, hear parties, and decide the petitioner's claim within four months.

Bishwanath Chatterjee Vs the State of Jharkhand — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(C) No. 83 of 2021

¶4

Bishwanath Chatterjee

¶5

... … Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

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

¶9

The Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh

¶10

The Land Acquisition Officer, Ramgarh

¶11

The S.D.M., Ramgarh

¶12

The Circle Officer, Mandu, District- Ramgarh

¶13

The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, CCL, Ranchi

¶14

The General Manager, CCL, Pundi Project, Kuju Area, Ramgarh … … Respondents

¶15

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶16

----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Ms. Saumya Pandey, A.C. to G.P.-II For the Respondent-CCL : Mr. A.K.Das, Advocate Order No. 03 Dated: 18.02.2021

¶17

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

¶18

2. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the designation of the respondent no. 7 is permitted to be changed from Director General, CCL, Ranchi to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, CCL, Ranchi.

¶19

3. Considering the present pandemic situation, the office is directed to make necessary correction in the designation of the respondent no. 7 in the cause title of the writ petition.

¶20

4. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to provide employment and suitable compensation to the petitioner in lieu of acquisition of the land appertaining to plot nos. 261, 269, 277, 1137, 1164, 1210, 1234, 1254, 1333, 1404 under Khata No. 92, Village-Pundi, P.S.-Mandu, P.S. No. 116, District-Ramgarh measuring area of 29.77 acres (hereinafter to be referred as the said land) which has been acquired by the respondent nos. 7 and 8 for mining activities being undertaken in Pundi Project, Kuju Area, CCL, Ramgarh.

¶21

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that ex-landlord Upendra Chandra Panda had submitted his return to the

¶22

¶23

Government of Bihar in the year 1957 through “Chatipurti Abhilekh Sankhya 677/SA – Final Case No. 325/1957” in respect of the land in question in the capacity of Jamindar. The said land was settled in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner being the recorded tenant prayed for suitable compensation as well as employment from the respondent-CCL in lieu of acquisition of his land for mining purposes. The respondent no. 6 – the Circle Officer, Mandu, District- Ramgarh vide letter no. 1053 dated 28.08.2018 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) submitted the report before the Project Officer, Pundi Project, CCL, Kuju Area, Ramgarh stating therein that the petitioner’s name is mentioned in Register-II. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite submission of the said report by the respondent no. 6, no decision has been taken by the appropriate authority of the respondent-CCL on the present issue.

¶24

6. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the respondent-CCL, submits that in pursuance of the report submitted by the respondent no. 6 vide letter no. 1053 dated 28.08.2018, the matter is required to be factually verified by the respondent no. 8 – the General Manager, CCL, Pundi Project, Kuju Area, Ramgarh. It is further submitted that according to his instruction, several claims/counter claims seeking compensation and employment have come up by now for the land in question.

¶25

7. Be that as it may. Since in pursuance of submission of the report by the respondent no. 6 vide letter no. 1053 dated 28.08.2018, no decision has been taken by the competent authority of the respondent-CCL, without entering into the merit of the case, the respondent no. 8 is directed to take up the present matter after verifying the relevant records and on hearing the petitioners and other concerned persons, to take an informed decision on the present issue within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶26

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

¶27

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶28

Ritesh/-

Bishwanath Chatterjee v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bishwanath Chatterjee 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

Sumit Kumar Vs the Union of India Human Resources Department

Hakim Momin Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chandrawati Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Chief Secretary And Ors.

Anil Garg Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ms Dev Prabha Construction Pvt. Ltd. through Its Authorized Signatory Vikash Kumar Singh Vs the Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Ms Aloke Steels Industries Private Limited through Its Director Sri Kamendra Mishra Vs Damodar Valley Corporation through Its Chairman