Dismissed

Bulaki Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC27 Jan 2021WPC/908/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order in a writ petition by Bulaki Mahto concerns his claim for compensation for land allegedly acquired for the Deoghar Airport. The petitioner alleged lack of notices and unavailability of records. The court did not decide the compensation claim on merits but directed the Land Acquisition Officer to factually verify the records within three months.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is granted liberty to file a fresh representation before Respondent No. 4 with documents; said officer shall verify records and decide within three months after hearing.

Bulaki Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 908 of 2019

Bulaki Mahto

… … Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

The Secretary, Department of Land & Revenue, Ranchi

¶8

The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar

¶9

The Land Acquisition Officer, Deoghar 5. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation, New Delhi … … Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶11

----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Vishal Kumar Rai, AC to GA-IV -----

¶12

Order No. 05 Dated: 27.01.2021

¶13

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

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to pay the welfare stamp wanting on the affidavit of the writ petition today itself.

¶15

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

¶16

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to make payment of compensation along with interest to the petitioner and his co-sharers/legal heirs of recorded tenant in accordance with the genealogical table of the recorded tenant (a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition) with respect to the land appertaining to J.B. No. 27, Plot No. 04, measuring an area of 0.48 acre, Mouza-Domamarni, Thana No. 610, P.S.-Kunda, DistrictDeoghar (hereinafter referred to as “the said land”) acquired by the respondents for construction of Deoghar Airport.

¶17

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid land of the petitioner and co-sharers have been acquired by the respondent authorities for construction of Airport at Deoghar. Despite the fact that the respondent authorities started the land acquisition proceeding for acquiring the land of different raiyats of Mouza-Domamarni, no notice under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 was issued to the petitioner/his co-sharers. The petitioner’s land have already been utilized for the purpose of construction of the said Airport. Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner filed an application under the Right to

¶18

¶19

Information Act, 2005 for furnishing the details of earlier acquired land for construction of Airport as well as for expansion of Airport situated at Deoghar before the respondent no. 4 – the Land Acquisition Officer-cumPublic Information Officer, Deoghar on 20.09.2016, in response to which the respondent no. 4 vide his letter no. 422 dated 22.09.2016 informed the petitioner that the records relating to the required information were not available in the office. Since the petitioner/his co-sharers have been deprived of due compensation for acquisition of the land in question, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶20

3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 stating inter alia that Plot No. 04 situated within J.B. No. 27, measuring an area of 0.48 acre of Mouza-Domamarni has neither been acquired nor has been amalgamated for construction of Deoghar Airport and hence, there is no question of payment of compensation to the petitioner.

¶21

4. It is not understood as to how the aforesaid statement has been made by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 in their counter affidavit particularly keeping in view that vide letter no. 422 dated 22.09.2016, the respondent no. 4 himself had informed the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 that the records of acquired land for construction of Deoghar Airport were not available in the office.

¶22

5. Thus, in my view, the matter is required to be factually considered once again by the respondent no. 4. Hence, the petitioner is given liberty to file a fresh representation on the present issue before the respondent no. 4 along with required documents in support of his claim for compensation. On receipt of the said representation, the respondent no. 4 after verifying the relevant records and on providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other concerned persons (if so required), shall take an informed decision in this regard within a period of three months from the date of filing of the representation.

¶23

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

¶24

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶25

Manish

Bulaki Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bulaki Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

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

Bisheshwar Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chhabi Lal Besra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Amit Kumar Mit Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bigani Devi Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Ram Briksh Prasad Soni Vs Regional Manager Cum Authorized Officer Jharkhand Gramin Bank Hazaribag

Vishal Kumar Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.