Disposed

Anil Kumar Ghosh v. the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Jharkhand HC19 Jul 2022WPC/3738/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition filed for higher compensation on land acquisition, the court held that an alternative statutory remedy exists. The petitioners were directed to file an application under Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 before the District Land Acquisition Officer. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of as no alternative remedy existed to be exhausted first.

What did the court decide?

The interveners are directed to file an application under Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 before the District Land Acquisition Officer, Sahibganj. The writ petition is disposed of.

Anil Kumar Ghosh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief… — Arbitration | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI [Civil Writ Jurisdiction] W.P.(C ) No. 3738 of 2020

¶2

Anil Kumar Ghosh & Ors. .... .. ... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. .. ... ... Respondents

¶3

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO

¶4

......... For the Petitioners : Mr. Sudhanshu Shekhar Choudhary, Advocate For the respondents-State : Mr. Aditya Raman, AC to GA-III For the respondents-NHAI: Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, AC to Mrs. Sweety Topno, Advocate

¶5

06/ 19.07.2022 .

¶6

Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sudhanshu Shekhar Choudhary has submitted, that Petitioners, namely, 1.Anil Kumar Ghosh, 2.Sudhir Chandra Ghosh, 3. Md. Nasim, 4.Md. Ghisu Shaikh, 5.Md. Ibrahim and 6.Md. Jakir Hussain have preferred this writ petition on the ground that respondent-authorities have acquired the land of the petitioners without actual payment of the compensation as mentioned in the writ petition, as less compensation has been paid to the petitioners.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners has thus submitted, that this Court may grant appropriate writ for the dues of compensation in favour of the petitioners.

¶9

Learned counsel for the respondents-State, Mr. Aditya Raman, AC to GA-III and learned counsel for the respondents- NHAI, Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, AC to Mrs. Sweety Topno have opposed the prayer and submitted, that writ cannot be issued in such matters and for redressal of their grievances, petitioners have to invoke the provisions under Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 before the competent authority i.e. the District Land Acquisition Officer, Sahibganj, as such, petitioners may be directed to file their representation in detail along with the document with regard to the claim of the land before the District Land Acquisition Officer, Sahibganj, who shall pass necessary order in accordance with law within a period of 45 days from the filing of the such application.

¶10

Considering the rival submissions of the parties, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, if the petitioners have grievances, they have legal remedy to file an application before the competent authority within a period of 30 days from today under Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. However, if, such application is filed before the competent authority within a period of 30 days from today, the competent authority shall refer the same to the Arbitrator as appointed

¶11

-2-

¶12

under the Act to dispose of the same within a period of 45 days from the date of receiving of application or recommendation before the appropriate Arbitrator.

¶13

Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of.

¶14

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

¶15

R.S.

Anil Kumar Ghosh v. the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Ghosh v. the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

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

Manoj Kumar Sinha Vs the General Manager Marketing L I C Housing Finance Ltd.

Chittaranjan Das Vs Steel Authority of India Limited through Its Chairman and Ors.

Smt Kamla Devi Kothari Vs Steel Authority of India Limited through Its Chairman and Ors.

Ravi Jain Vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

M/S Ved Construction through Its Proprietor Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Prakash Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand