Disposed

Surendra Prasad v. Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Jharkhand HC14 Feb 2023WPC/791/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition concerning compensation for land acquired for national highway. Court did not decide merits; instead directed petitioner to file detailed representation with Land Acquisition Officer for further consideration.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to file detailed representation with respondent No. 4 within one month. Respondent No. 4 to pass reasoned order after hearing within one month thereafter and pay admissible amount

Surendra Prasad Vs Land Reforms And Revenue Department — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (C) No. 791 of 2016

¶3

Surendra Prasad, son of Shiv Narayan Prasad, Resident of Sadar Bazar, Chas, P.O. and P.S. Chas, District Bokaro-8270313

¶4

… … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand, Department of Land Reforms and Revenue, having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Hatia, District-Ranchi through the Secretary,

¶7

Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro having its office at Bokaro, P.O. and P.S. B.S. City, District-Bokaro

¶8

Additional Collector, Bokaro, having its office at Bokaro, P.O. and P.S. B.S. City, District-Bokaro

¶9

Land Acquisition Officer, Bokaro, having its office at Bokaro, P.O. and P.S. B.S. City, District-Bokaro

¶10

Circle Officer, Chas, Bokaro, having its office at Bokaro, P.O. and P.S. B.S. City, District-Bokaro

¶11

N.H.A.I. Regional Office, Ashok Nagar, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Argora, Ranchi … … Respondents

¶12

¶13

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶14

¶15

For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Sinha, Advocate : Ms. Diksha Dwivedi, Advocate For the Resp. 1 to 5 : Ms. Mohini Gupta, Advocate For the Resp. No. 6 : Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, Advocate ---

¶16

10 /14.02.2023 Heard Ms. Diksha Dwivedi, learned counsel who has argued

¶17

the case yesterday also. Today, when the case is taken up Mr. Deepak Sinha, Advocate is also present.

¶18

2. Learned counsel for the respondents Ms. Mohini Gupta is present on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

¶19

3. Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, learned counsel appears on behalf of respondent No. 6.

¶20

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

¶21

“(a) For a direction upon the concerned respondent to forthwith pay compensation to the petitioner on account of land having area 10.75 decimals situated on Khata No. 52, Plot No. 1425, Mauza Jamgadia, P.O. and P.S. Chas, District Bokaro, acquired by the Respondents for the purpose transferring the same to the National Highway Authority of India for construction of national highway No. 32 from Ranganj-Maheshpur-Chas-West Bengal.

¶22

¶23

(b) For a declaration that the Respondent Authority cannot refused to pay appropriate compensation to the petitioner on account of acquisition of his land having area 10.75 decimals situated on Khata No. 52, Plot No. 1425, Mauza Jamgadia, P.O. and P.S. Chas, District Bokaro, on the ground that the said land is falling under the GairMajaruakhas land allegedly recorded in the Survey records.”

¶24

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner came to know that the land in question has been acquired by the respondents for transferring the same to National Highway Authority of India for construction of National Highway No. 42 from Rajganj-Maheshpur-Chas, West Bengal. The learned counsel submits that immediately thereafter the petitioner approached the concerned respondent by filing application dated 25.01.2016 along with his brothers, requesting the Authority to pay the appropriate compensation on account of such acquisition of land having area 10.75 decimal situated on Khata No. 52, plot No. 1425 Mouza Jamgadia, P.O. and P.S. Chas, District Bokaro, but the petitioner was told that no compensation shall be provided to the petitioner.

¶25

6. The petitioner has referred to Annexure-5 and from perusal of annexure-5 it appears that the petitioner had approached the respondent No. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the appropriate authority for taking care of grievance of the petitioner would be respondent No. 4 and not respondent No. 3. He submits that if the petitioner approaches respondent No. 4 by filing appropriate representation along with the writ records and a copy of this order, the Authority shall consider the representation and pass appropriate order in accordance with law and if amount is found admissible to the petitioner, the same shall also be paid in accordance with law.

¶26

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this writ petition is disposed of enabling the petitioner to approach respondent No. 4 by filing detailed representation with supporting documents in connection with his claim along with the writ records within a period of one month from today.

¶27

¶28

8. Upon filing of such representation, the respondent no. 4 shall grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his authorized representative and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period one month thereafter. The reasoned order be communicated to the petitioner through speed post at the address which may be provided by the petitioner in his representation itself. If any amount is found admissible and payable to the petitioner/any of the family members of the petitioner upon due identification and verification of records, the same shall also be paid within a period of two months from the date of the reasoned order. In case of any dispute, it will be open to the petitioner to proceed as per law. The Authority will also indicate in his reasoned order the remedies which may be available to the petitioner. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶29

9. This court has not entered into the merits or otherwise of the claim of the petitioner. It is for the respondent to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶30

10. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.

¶31

11. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶32

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶33

Binit

Surendra Prasad v. Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Prasad v. Land Reforms And Revenue Department

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

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.

Yusuf Mazhar Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors.