Disposed

Prabhat Kumar Poddar v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 Jun 2024WPC/2388/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought compensation with interest and solatium for land and structures demolished during road widening under a Section 11(1) notification. Respondents stated only a tiny portion stood proposed for acquisition and the land had not been acquired or utilised. The Court held the prayer could not be entertained but directed payment of due compensation if acquisition occurs.

What the court decided

AI extract

Prabhat Kumar Poddar Vs State of Jharkhand — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2388 of 2021

Prabhat Kumar Poddar

… … Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi

¶7

The District Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi

¶8

The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Ranchi

¶9

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

¶10

The Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Building Division, Ranchi … … Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶12

----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Kundan Kr Ambastha, Advocate Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate For the State : Ms. Apoorva Singh, AC to Sr. SC-III For the NHAI : Mrs. Sweety Topno, Advocate -----

¶13

Order No. 15 Dated: 10.06.2024

¶14

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to make payment of compensation along with interest and solatium thereon with respect to the land appertaining to Plot No. 978, sub-plot No. 978/C, Khata No. 09 and Plot No. 979, sub-plot No. 979/C, Khata No. 09, measuring an area of 0.11 acre (11 decimals) and 0.49 acre (49 decimals) respectively, situated at Village-Kudlong, Circle-Nagri, Thana No. 124, District-Ranchi along with structures standing thereon in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 on account of widening and strengthening of Road from Judicial Academy to Nagri Railway Crossing via Balalong, Kudlong by the Road Construction Department, Ranchi pursuant to the notification issued by the Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand under

¶15

¶16

Section 11(1) of the Act, 2013. Though the petitioner has not been served any notice relating to acquisition of the lands and house as well as other structures standing over the aforesaid lands, the same have been demolished by the Road Construction Department without paying any compensation to the petitioner which he is legally entitled to.

¶17

2. Reference may be made to order dated 21.09.2023 which reads as under:

¶18

“1. In course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the land appertaining to Plot No. 978, sub-plot No. 978/C, Khata No. 09 and Plot No. 979, sub-plot No. 979/C, Khata No. 09, measuring an area of 0.11 acre (11 decimals) and 0.49 acre (49 decimals) respectively, situated at Village-Kudlong, Circle-Nagri, Thana No. 124, District-Ranchi was purchased by the petitioner by way of registered sale deed dated 22.07.2008 subsequent to which correction slip was also issued on 08.10.2009 in Mutation Case No. 1484 R 27/2009-10. Thereafter, rent receipts were continuously issued in favour of the petitioner from the year 2009-10 till 2019-20. The petitioner’s name has also been shown in continuous khatiyan with respect to the said land. The Government of Jharkhand through the Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms issued notifications on 29.11.2017 under Section 11(1) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for acquisition of Plot No. 978, Khata No. 09, measuring an area of 0.15 acre and Plot No. 979, Khata No. 09, measuring an area of 0.11 acre.

¶19

2. The main reason for filing the present writ petition is that the respondent authorities, without lawfully acquiring the said land, demolished the boundary wall, quarter and main gate constructed over the same in the process of widening and strengthening of Kudlong Road from Judicial Academy to Nagri Railway Crossing.

¶20

3. Though a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3, however, it appears that the same is not only evasive, but also contains wrong facts. Under the aforesaid circumstance, the said respondents are granted four weeks’ time by

¶21

¶22

way of last indulgence to file proper supplementary counter affidavit for adjudication of this case.

¶23

4. Put up this case under the heading “For Admission” on 06.11.2023.”

¶24

3. The writ petition was thereafter taken up on

¶25

06.11.2023 and on the said date, this Court after making certain observations, directed the respondents to complete the entire formalities whatsoever and to take immediate steps for making payment of fair compensation to the petitioner within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the said order. In case of not filing an affidavit to that effect, the respondent nos. 2 and 6 were directed to remain physically present before this Court on the next date of hearing i.e., 05.02.2024.

¶26

4. Second supplementary counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 on 06.04.2024 and the respondent no. 2 – the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi appeared before this Court on 08.04.2024.

¶27

5. Ms. Apoorva Singh, AC to Sr. SC-III appearing on behalf of the respondents, refers to paragraph nos. 7, 8 and 9 of the said supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3, which read as under:

¶28

“7. That it is stated that the deponent constituted a committee for spot verification. The committee by complying the principles of natural justice made spot verification in the presence of the petitioners and submitted its report dated 28.03.2024. On spot inspection, it was found that an area of 0.0046 acre and 0.01 acre of land respectively out of plot no. 978 and plot no. 979 respectively is proposed to be acquired for widening of road from Judicial Academy to Nagri Railway Crossing via Balalong Road. It was also found that the land claimed by the petitioner is still fallow and the same has not been acquired till date nor the existing black road has been extended or utilized for the said purpose.

¶29

¶30

It was also found that two pillars along with a gate is existing over the land which is outside the purview of proposed acquisition.

¶31

8. That it is stated that the requisition department, that is the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Division, Ranchi has sent the corrected requisition on 24.11.2023. The process of land acquisition is at a nascent stage and if the land as claimed by the petitioner is finally acquired, award for the same will be prepared and the petitioner would be paid the compensation amount for such acquisition and that being so that writ petition is frivolous one and not only but also is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶32

9. That it is stated and humbly submitted that on perusal of Annexure-L series, it would be evident that road has not been widened over plot Nos. 978 and 979 nor the same has been acquired till date and that being so, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.”

¶33

6. Considering the aforesaid factual stand taken in the

¶34

second supplementary counter affidavit dated 06.04.2024 filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3, the petitioner’s prayer made in the writ petition cannot be entertained. It is, however, observed that if the petitioner’s land in question is acquired by the respondent authorities, he shall be paid appropriate compensation after following due process of law.

¶35

7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶36

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶37

Manish

¶38

Prabhat Kumar Poddar v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Prabhat Kumar Poddar v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagendra Prasad Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dharmendra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vijay Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Meera Kumari Alias Meera Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Birendra Nath Soy Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ms Icon Dairy Food India Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Vivek Lamba Vs Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited through Its Chairman