Petitioner sought compensation for notified land. Court found no genuine earlier representation made that was ignored and dismissed the writ, directing the petitioner to approach the Competent Authority within two months.
Petitioner directed to approach Respondent No. 3 with a detailed representation and copies of records within two months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 6612 of 2012
Surendra Kumar S/o late Ramlu Mahto, resident of Village Ormanjhi, P.0. Ormanjhi, P.S. Ormanjhi, District Ranchi within State of Jharkhand
… … Petitioner
Versus
All S/o late Ramlu Mahto.
All S/o late Bhim Mahto.
No.(5) to (10) resident of village Ormanjhi, P.0.& P.S.Ormanjhi, District Ranchi. … … Respondents
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : None For the Resp. Nos.1, 2&3 : Mr. Lal Gyan Ranjan Nath Shahdeo, Adv. For the Resp. No.4 : Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, Advocate ---
03 /16.02.2023 Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 are present.
3. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:
“For preparation of awards and payment of compensation, in respect of acquired land with standing pucca houses of petitioner and respondents no.5 to 10 excluding respondent no.9 bearing R.S. Plot no. 866, under Khata no. 103, area 24 decimals, and R.S.Plot no. 867, under Khata no. 99, area 7 ½ decimals out of total area 14 decimals, situated at village Ormanjhi, P.S.Ormanjhi, P.S. no. 61, District Ranchi for the purpose of N.H.33, Vide notification, dated 13 July, 2009, contained in annexure (3).”
4. No counter-affidavit, as such, has been filed in the present case. Notices were issued to private respondent nos.5 to 10, but nobody has entered appearance on their behalf.
5. From perusal of the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner has made a specific averment in para 9 that the petitioner and the respondent nos.5 to 7 are sons of late Ramlu Mahto, and that respondent nos. 8 to 10 are sons of late Bhim Mahto and are co-sharers of the property and have
2
their residential houses. It is the case of the petitioner that vide notification dated 13.07.2009 for construction of N.H. 31 their lands were notified for acquisition and the petitioner had received notice bearing no.77 (ii) dated 13.09.2010 and it is alleged that the notice was in the name of wrong persons, namely, Madhu Mahto and others and an award was also prepared. It appears from the writ petition that certain compensation has been paid to respondent no.9 amounting to Rs.5,42,246/-, but no compensation has been paid to the petitioner or to respondent nos.5 to 8 and 10. It further appears that when the petitioner had approached the authorities by filing a representation, the authority concerned had appointed Engineers of the department for making local inspection regarding measurement and evaluation etc.
6. The grievance of the petitioner is that ultimately, no compensation has been paid to the petitioner and the private respondents except an amount to the extent of Rs.5,42,246/- said to be paid in favour of the respondent no.9. The petitioner had represented before the respondent no.3, but the grievance of the petitioner was not redressed and consequently, the present writ petition has been filed. The petitioner had also represented before the Deputy Commissioner on 12.03.2012.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the competent authority, who has to look into grievance of the petitioner would be respondent no.3 and the petitioner may approach respondent no.3.
8. Considering the nature of grievance of the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of enabling the petitioner to approach the respondent no.3 by filing a detailed representation with regard to his claim along with a copy of the entire writ records and a copy of this order within a period of two months from today.
9. Upon filing of such representation, the respondent no.3 shall look into the grievance of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of filing of the representation. The reasoned order be also communicated to the petitioner through speed post at the address which may be provided by the petitioner in the representation itself. If there is any dispute with
3
regard to the claim of the petitioner, the respondent no.3 shall also mention in the order itself as to the remedies, which may be available to the petitioner after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or any other person, whose rights may be affected by this order. 10. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav/
1 issue framed by the court
whether the petitioner is entitled to prepare awards and claim compensation for acquired land where previous authorities allegedly failed to address the grievance.
Surendra Kumar S/o late Ramlu Mahto
State of Jharkhand
Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi
Land Acquisition officer, Cum- Competent Authority, N.H. Act
Anand Prakash
Sahdeo Mahto
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
