Disposed

Catholic Diocess Dudhani v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC3 Aug 2023WPC/1031/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition for quashing an order by the Divisional Commissioner in a land acquisition case. The Divisional Commissioner had set aside an award and referred the matter to the Civil Court. The Court found the issue already resolved and directed the Civil Court to decide the pending case.

What did the court decide?

Writ application disposed of as infructuous; Civil Judge directed to dispose of land acquisition case expeditiously.

Catholic Diocess Dudhani Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors. — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P (C) No. 1031 of 2006

¶2

Catholic Diocess Dudhani through its Secretary Philip Tuddu ----Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand

¶5

The Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka

¶6

The Collector cum Deputy Commissioner, Dumka

¶7

The District Land Acquisition Officer, Dumka

¶8

Radhe Chand Lal Choudhary ----Respondents ---

¶9

CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath

¶10

¶11

For the Petitioner: Mr. Piyush Chitresh, Advocate For the Resp.-State: Mr. Prashant Kr. Rai, A.C to S.C (L&C)-I For the Resp. No. 5: Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, Advocate

¶12

¶13

04 / 03.08.2023 Petitioner Catholic Diocess Dudhani have filed this writ application for quashing of the order dated 10.05.2005 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka in Revenue Misc. Appeal No. 46/2004-05 arising out of Land Acquisition Case No. 54/2001-02, whereby and wherein, the Award Nos. 30 and 31 prepared by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Dumka in respect of Plot No. 53 and 53/187, J.B. No. 32, measuring an area of 21 bigha, 11 Kattha and 07 dhur under Mouza Balia No. 40, has been set aside with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka to modify the award. It was also observed that since complicated question of title and law was involved in the respect of the aforesaid land and both the parties are claiming compensation, it would be in the interest of justice to refer the matter under sections 18 & 30 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the competent Civil Court for proper adjudication of the dispute.

¶14

The aforesaid land was acquired by the Respondent State for construction of railway line. Accordingly, notice was issued to the writ petitioner. During the pendency of the proceeding of the award, private Respondent No. 5 - Radhe Chand Lal Choudhary had filed objection, staking his claim over the aforesaid land. His objection was inquired into and it was dismissed vide Annexure-4. Subsequently, award under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was prepared. After preparation of the award, Respondent No. 5 Radhe Chand Lal Choudhary appeared and filed objection with a prayer to refer the matter to the competent Civil Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Respondent No. 5 moved before the

¶15

¶16

Divisional Commissioner, Dumka with a prayer that the awarded amount should not be disbursed, unless his claim is decided.

¶17

The writ petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 10.05.2005 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka in Revenue Misc. Appeal No. 46/2004-05 arising out of Land Acquisition Case No. 54/2001-02. The Divisional Commissioner, Dumka while passing the order, has directed the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka to modify the award of compensation as the land in question was not Basouri, rather it was agricultural land. It was further observed that since complicated question of title and law is involved, matter should be referred to the Competent Civil Court under sections 18 & 30 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

¶18

Grievance of the petitioner is that the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka has no authority to pass such anorder.

¶19

Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 5, has conceded this fact. He has also conceded that the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka directing the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka to modify the award, was beyond jurisdiction. It was further submitted that the matter has already been referred to the Competent Civil Court where both the parties have appeared and they are contesting the case. It was also submitted that the State Government has filed counter affidavit, stating that the operation of the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka dated 10.05.2005 (Annexure7) directing the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka to modify the award, has not been acted upon

¶20

Considering the aforesaid facts, since the issue involved herein has already been resolved, this writ application has become infructuous. However, Learned Land Acquisition Judge i.e. Civil Judge (Senior Division)-II, Dumka is directed to dispose of the L.A. Case No. 54/2001-02/4/2005 as expeditiously as possible.

¶21

With this observation and direction, this writ application is disposed of.

¶22

(Ambuj Nath, J)

¶23

Ranjeet/

Catholic Diocess Dudhani v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Catholic Diocess Dudhani v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

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

Suresh Kumar Agarwal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gopal Kumar Lachhiramka Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shyam Sunder Tibrewal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kawish Adman Vs the State of Jharkhand

Laxman Chandra Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner

Sunil Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand