Allowed¶22

Balram Sahu And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC3 Apr 2024WPC/2292/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi; W.P.(C) No. 2292 of 2012; decided 03.04.2024; Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. Keywords: land acquisition; raiyati land; peaceful possession; pitch road construction; Mauza Hatia; Khata No. 93 Plot No. 1553; Khata No. 209 Plot No. 1549; Revenue P.S. No. 248; Rural Engineering Organization (REO); Rural Works Department; Executive Engineer; Circle Officer Namkum; Article 226; R.T.I. Act 2005; W.P.(C) No. 666 of 2012; co-ordinate Bench order dated 07.03.2019; no construction without due process of land acquisition; writ allowed.

What did the court decide?

Declaration/direction that there will be no construction over the raiyati land of the petitioners without due process of land acquisition. ¶22

Balram Sahu And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Declaration/direction that there will be no construction over the raiyati land of the petitioners without due process of land acquisition.

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent authorities can be restrained from interfering with the petitioners' peaceful possession of their raiyati land in Mauza Hatia (Khata No. 93, Plot No. 1553 - 1.42 acres; Khata No. 209, Plot No. 1549 - 0.41 acres, Revenue P.S. No. 248) by constructing a pitch road without validly acquiring the land.

¶17

Court's answer

The petitioners' main grievance that road was being constructed on their raiyati land stands redressed, as the construction of road has been finally suspended.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The writ application is allowed with the declaration/assurance that there will be no construction over the raiyati land of the petitioners without due process of land acquisition.

¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ (Article 226) by three co-sharers/raiyats of Mauza Hatia (Khata No. 93, Plot No. 1553 - 1.42 acres; Khata No. 209, Plot No. 1549 - 0.41 acres, Revenue P.S. No. 248) seeking a direction that respondent authorities (including the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization) not interfere with their peaceful possession by constructing a pitch road without acquiring the land. The State's counter affidavit dated 22.12.2012 accepted the petitioners' ownership; pursuant to this Court's direction of 29.01.2024 the stand was verified. An RTI reply dated 23.03.2012 showed the work had commenced but was stayed after filing of the related W.P.(C) No. 666 of 2012, which was disposed of on 07.03.2019 with the observation that road construction without acquisition was not justified; the work was finally suspended. Holding the grievance redressed, the Court allowed the petition with the declaration that there will be no construction over the petitioners' raiyati land without due process of land acquisition. (Single Judge: Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.; decided 03.04.2024.)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2292 of 2012

¶2

------

¶3

Balram Sahu

¶4

Smt. Taramani Devi

¶5

Mosammat Reeman Devi

¶6

.... .... …. Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Rural Engineering Organization, (REO), Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi

¶9

Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi

¶10

Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi

¶11

Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization, Ranchi

¶12

Circle Officer, Namkum, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi .... .... .... Respondents

¶13

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶14

For the Petitioners : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, AC to SC IV

¶15

------

¶16

Order No.07 / Dated : 03.04.2024

¶17

The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction upon the respondent– authorities not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the land appertaining to 1.42 acres of land of Khata No. 93, Plot No. 1553 of Mauza Hatia as also 0.41 acres of land appertaining to Khata No. 209, Plot No. 1549 of Mauza Hatia being Revenue P.S. No. 248. Petitioner apprehends construction of a pitch road on this land by respondent no. 4 without validly acquiring the same.

¶18

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 & 3, that the land in question of Mauza-Hatia, Khata No. 93, Plot No. 1553 area 1.42 acres stands recorded in the name of Dhiraj Kuwar and Shila Kuwar, Son/Daughter of Chhabila Tiwari as Kayami in the land of Mauza-Hatia, Khata No. 209, Plot No. 1549 area 0.41 acres stands recorded as Kayami in name of Suraj Nath Singh son of Ugarh Singh and others in the Revisional Survey record of rights. The jamabandi of the lands in question stands in the name of raiyats in the Register-II, detailed in para-5 of the counter affidavit.

¶19

On 29.01.2024, learned counsel for the State was directed to verify the stand of ownership of the land in question. In the counter affidavit dated 22.12.2012 filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3, the ownership of the petitioners over the land in question, has been accepted.

¶20

It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioners that from Annexure-12 which is a letter of Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Ranchi dated 23.03.2012 addressed to the petitioner no.1- Balram Sahu wherein information has been furnished under R.T.I. Act, 2005 that the work had been commenced, but the same was stayed after filing of W.P.(C) No.666 of 2012. In the said case, in view of the fact that the work was finally suspended, the writ petition

¶21

was disposed of vide order dated 07.03.2019 with an observation that without acquiring the land in question, construction of road was not justified. 5. It is submitted by AC to SC IV that no road is being constructed on the raiyati land of the petitioners considering their objection raised, and in view of the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.666 of 2012. 6. In the present case from the pleadings and the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, it appears that main grievance of the petitioners that road was being constructed on their raiyati land has been redressed, as the construction of road has been finally suspended.

¶22

Under the circumstance, this application stands allowed as there will be no construction over raiyati land of the petitioners without due process of land acquisition.

¶23

AKT/Anit

Balram Sahu And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balram Sahu And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Kumar Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Naresh Murmu And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Mathur Saha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shamsher Ansari Vs State of Jharkhand

Khoshi Alias Khosi Vs State of Jharkhand

Rajaram Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand