Disposed

Kunal Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 Aug 2023WPC/1998/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged land acquisition award seeking valuation of structures. The High Court directed the Additional Collector-cum-Arbitrator to dispose of pending applications for award modification within two months, exercising jurisdiction under the National Highways Act, 1956.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No. 5 to dispose of applications dated 17.01.2020 and 17.03.2020 within two months.

Kunal Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 1998 of 2020

¶3

….....

¶4

1 (i) Kunal Kumar

¶5

1 (ii) Kajal Kumari 2 Mamta Devi

¶6

..... Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Jharkhand

¶9

Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro.

¶10

District Land Acquisition Officer, Bokaro

¶11

Project Director, National Highways Authority of India

¶12

Additional Collector-cum-Arbitrator, National Highways Authority of India

¶13

Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Building Division Bokaro

¶14

Circle Officer, Chas, Bokaro

¶15

.... Respondents

¶16

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

¶17

…......... For the Petitioners : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Munna Lal Yadav, S.C.(L&C)-III : Mr. Deepak Kumar, A.C. to S.C.(L&C)-III For the Resp.-NHAI : Mrs. Sweety Topno, Advocate : Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, Advocate

¶18

..........

¶19

11/09.08.2023

¶20

The petitioners have filed this writ petition with prayer to direct the respondents for not taking any coercive steps to demolish the house and other structure standing on Plot No.187, Khata No.27 situated at Village Telgariya More, Mouza Jamgoria, P.O.- Jamgoria, P.S.- Chas, District Bokaro. They have further prayed to direct respondent No.3 for payment of enhanced amount of compensation alongwith interest and solatium in accordance with provision of National Highways Act 1956.

¶21

Admittedly, the petitioners are owner of the land appertaining to Khata No.27, Plot No.187 situated at Village Telgariya More, Mouza Jamgoria, P.O.- Jamgoria, P.S.- Chas, District Bokaro. The aforesaid land was acquired for purpose of widening of road at National Highways 32, Bokaro.

¶22

The respondent No.3 District Land Acquisition Officer, Bokaro prepared an award against the valuation of land so acquired for a sum of Rs.45,90,541/- to be paid to the petitioners. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent No.3 District Land Acquisition Officer, Bokaro, while preparing the award has not taken into consideration the

¶23

-2-

¶24

valuation of the structures standing on the land alongwith the fixtures. The petitioners filed an application before the respondent No.5 Additional Collector-cum-Arbitrator, National Highways Authority of India for modification of the award and to include the valuation of the structures standing of the land.

¶25

Attention has been drawn towards Annexure-3, which at page-36 wherein the respondent No.6 Executive Engineer Building Construction Department, Bokaro has assessed the valuation of structures to be Rs.45,90,541/-. The petitioners have come before Court for directing the respondents to prepare the award afresh in light of the valuation fixed by respondent No.6 Executive Engineer Building Construction Department, Bokaro.

¶26

Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4 Project Director, National Highways Authority of India submitted that the petitioners should appear before the respondent No.5 Additional Collector-cum-Arbitrator, National Highways Authority of India for enhancement of the award in light of provision under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. Same stand has been taken up respondents-State as it appears from the supplementary counter affidavit dated 12.01.2023.

¶27

Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 specifically provides as under:- “If the amount determined by the the competent authority under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall, on an application by either of the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government.”

¶28

Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have already approached the respondent No.5 on 17.01.2020 and 17.03.202 to prepare afresh enhanced award taking into consideration valuation of structures and fixtures standing on the land, as claimed by them. It was submitted that the respondent No.5 Additional Collector-cum-Arbitrator, National Highways Authority of India has not passed any order on the application filed by the petitioners.

¶29

-3-

¶30

In view of the provision under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, the petitioners have already appeared before respondent No.5 for preparing afresh enhanced award. The only grievance is that the respondent No.5 has not passed any order on their application.

¶31

Accordingly, it is here by ordered that the respondent No.5 Additional Collector-cum-Arbitrator, National Highways Authority of India shall dispose of both the applications filed by the petitioners dated 17.01.2020 and 17.03.2020 in accordance with law within two months from the date of the receipt of this order.

¶32

. With this direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶33

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

¶34

Jay/

Kunal Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunal Kumar 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

Sikandar Rai Vs State of Jharkhand

Vijay Kumar Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chittaranjan Kewat Vs Agriculture Department

Premanand Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner

Awadhesh Sahrma Awadhesh Kr.Sharma Vs State of Jharkhand

Kalawati Devi Vs State of Jharkhand

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Sikandar Rai Vs State of Jharkhand

Vijay Kumar Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chittaranjan Kewat Vs Agriculture Department

Premanand Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner

Awadhesh Sahrma  Awadhesh Kr.Sharma Vs State of Jharkhand

Kalawati Devi Vs State of Jharkhand

Awadhesh Sahrma Awadhesh Kr.Sharma Vs State of Jharkhand