Dismissed

Sunil Kumar Jain v. Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation

Jharkhand HC2 Dec 2022WPC/4279/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition concerning land acquisition compensation where the petitioner contested as a tenant, the Court allowed the request for referring the dispute about apportionment of compensation to the competent authority to refer it to the Principal Civil Court under Section 3H of the National Highway Authority Act, 1956.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file a fresh representation with Respondent No. 3 to refer the dispute to the Principal Civil Court.

Sunil Kumar Jain Vs Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 4279 of 2012

¶3

Sunil Kumar Jain ..... … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand.

¶6

Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag.

¶7

District Land Acquisition Officer-cumCompetent Authority, National Highway No. 33, Hazaribag.

¶8

Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, National Highway Authority of India, Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶9

Hansraj Jain

¶10

Kamta Devi Jain ..... … Respondents

¶11

¶12

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶13

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Suman Marandi, A.C. to S.C.-IV. For the NHAI : Mrs. Sweety Topno, Advocate.

¶14

¶15

15/ 02.12.2022 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has confined his prayer so far as prayer No. 1(b) is concerned, wherein prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondent No. 3 to forthwith refer the matter to the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction, in terms of Section 3H(3) and (4) of the National Highway Authority Act, 1956.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the land in question was acquired by the National Highway Authority of India and the petitioner was the tenant in the land in question and tenancy was existing at that time, as such, the petitioner is entitled for such compensation. By way of referring Annexure-3 to the petition, he submits that the petitioner has raised his objection, however, nothing has been done.

¶17

Mrs. Sweety Topno, learned counsel appearing for the NHAI fairly submits that there is provision of referring the matter before the competent authority, if any dispute is there under Section 3H(3) and (4) of the National Highway Authority Act, 1956.

¶18

Mr. Suman Maranadi, learned A.C. to S.C.-IV appearing for the State has raised the objection and submits that the settlement is already made.

¶19

In view of the above and particularly in view of Section 3H(3) and (4) of the National Highway Authority Act, 1956, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount of any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payment, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction, the land in question is

¶20

situated.

¶21

As such, the petitioner is directed to approach the respondent No. 3 by way of filing a fresh representation, who will look into that and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶22

With the above observation, this petition is disposed of.

¶23

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶24

Amitesh/-

Sunil Kumar Jain v. Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar Jain v. Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation

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

Govind Kutty And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Tarapado Dhiwar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Khurshid Alam Alias Khushid Anwar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Akhtar Ansari Vs Sajda Khatoon

Mazhar Alam Vs District Administration

Icici Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited Th Its Authorized Representative Sri Praveen Jocob Vs the State of Jharkhand