Dismissed

Yusuf Mazhar v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Jharkhand HC14 Feb 2023WPC/3181/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought employment or compensation for land alleged to be acquired without law for road construction. As no adverse order existed against respondents, the High Court refused to decide merits but directed the District Land Acquisition Officer and CCL to verify claims and pass reasoned orders after hearing within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directing Respondent No. 3 and No. 4 to verify claims, grant hearing, and pass reasoned orders within two months of filing representations.

Yusuf Mazhar Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W. P. (C) No. 3181 of 2014

¶4

Yusuf Mazhar son of Mazhar Alam, resident of village Chitarpur, P.O. and P.S. Chitarpur, District Ramgarh … … Petitioner Versus

¶5

State of Jharkhand

¶6

Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. and District Ramgarh

¶7

District Land Acquisition Officer, Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. and District Ramgarh

¶8

Chief General Manager, Central Coalfields Ltd. Rajrappa Project, Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. and District Ramgarh

¶9

Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division, Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. and District Ramgarh … … Respondents

¶10

… … Respondents

¶11

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶13

For the Petitioner : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Resp.-CCL : Mr. B. V. Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate For the State : None

¶14

20/14.02.2023

¶15

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

2. Nobody appears on behalf of the State.

¶17

3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -

¶18

“for issuance of an appropriate writ/rule/direction commanding upon the respondents and directing them particularly the respondent No. 4 to provide employment to the petitioner in Central Coal Fields Limited on account of construction of road over the lands of the petitioner in view of the fact that similarly situated person has been provided employment in C.C.L and/or the petitioner in alternative prays to make payment of the amount of compensation to the petitioner forthwith on account of construction of road by the respondent no. 5 on the lands measuring 2 decimals and 10 decimals comprised within plot nos. 2620 and 2621 of khata no. 572 situated at village Mael, P.S. Rajrappa, District Ramgarh although the aforementioned lands belonging to the petitioner has not been acquired in accordance with law and the respondent authorities in sheer misuse of power constructed road over the lands exclusively belonging to the petitioner without taking recourse of law and for such other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner is legally entitled to.”

¶19

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-CCL has submitted that the

¶20

petitioner is seeking a mandamus from this Court and so far as the

¶21

¶22

CCL (Central Coalfields Limited) is concerned, the only relief against CCL is regarding employment. The learned counsel submits that for compensation, the petitioner has to move before the State-authority as the property claimed by the petitioner is said to have been acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act.

¶23

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the property of the petitioner has been acquired by issuing a notification and the possession has also been taken, but neither any compensation has been given by the State nor any employment has been given by the CCL.

¶24

6. Upon this, learned counsel for the respondent-CCL has submitted that some portion of the land was required to be purchased by CCL for which the value was also determined to be Rs. 26669.60, but, ultimately the petitioner did not turn up to do the needful.

¶25

7. This submission is being disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that the entire property was acquired and therefore, there is no question of execution of any sale deed.

¶26

8. Considering the fact that the petitioner is seeking mandamus from this Court and no adverse order, as such, has been passed by any of the respondents as per the records, therefore, this Court is not inclined to enter into the merits or otherwise of the claim of the petitioner with regard to employment or with regard to compensation at this stage .

¶27

9. However, this writ petition is disposed of enabling the petitioner to approach the respondent No. 3 raising his grievance with regard to claim of compensation by filing a detailed representation, a copy of the entire writ records and a copy of this order within a period of two weeks from today.

¶28

10. Upon filing of such representation, the respondent No. 3 shall verify the records and pass a reasoned order after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his authorized representative within a period of two months from the date of filing of the representation. The reasoned order should also be communicated to the petitioner through speed post at the address which may be provided by the petitioner in the representation itself.

¶29

¶30

11. If any admissible amount is found payable, the same be also paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of passing of the reasoned order. In case of dispute, the reasoned order should also indicate the remedies which may be available with the petitioner.

¶31

12. So far as the claim for appointment is concerned, though the respondent-CCL has opposed the prayer, but no adverse order, as such, has been brought on record and the claim may also need some verification. Accordingly, the petitioner may approach the respondent No. 4 with regard to his claim by filing a detailed representation along with a copy of the entire writ records and a copy of this order within a period of two weeks from today.

¶32

13. Upon filing of such representation, the respondent No. 4 shall verify the records and pass a reasoned order after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his authorized representative within a period of two months from the date of filing of the representation. The reasoned order should also be communicated to the petitioner through speed post at the address which may be provided by the petitioner in the representation itself.

¶33

14. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.

¶34

15. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

¶35

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶36

Mukul

Yusuf Mazhar v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yusuf Mazhar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Adarsh Sawawlambhi Sahkari Grih Nirman Samity Limited through Secretary Sri Y N Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Registrar Co. Operative Societies and Anr.

Arun Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Ms Sitaram Engineering Through Its Proprietor Sitaram Lohar Vs Authorised Officer Uco Bank

Surendra Prasad Vs Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Jay Prakash Harlalka Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Suresh Kr Mehta And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief Secretary And Ors.