Disposed

Ramdev v. the Secretary Department of Land Revenue and Land Reforms

Jharkhand HC15 Oct 2024WPC/2876/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought release of compensation with interest for land acquired for a National Highway, claiming it was not government land. The court held that the title dispute cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction and directed that the petitioner approach the District Land Acquisition Officer under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act for referral to a competent civil court.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ramdev Vs the Secretary Department of Land Revenue and… — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 2876 of 2018

¶3

Ramdev Kumar, aged about 19 years, son of Laldhari Thakur, resident of Village – Konara, P.O. + P.S. – Barhi, Distt – Hazaribagh

¶4

… … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Secretary, Department of land revenue and land reforms, Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. – Dhurwa, Ranchi

¶7

Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. – Hazaribagh

¶8

Project Director, National Highway Authority, Govindpur, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, Dhanbad.

¶9

Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. Hazaribagh, Hazaribagh … … Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶12

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilendu Kumar, Advocate For the NHAI : Mrs. Sweety Topno, Advocate : Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prashant Kr. Rai, Advocate

¶13

¶14

17 /15.10.2024 Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶15

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:

¶16

“That, in the instant writ petition, the above named petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/Rule(s)/order(s)/direction(s), or a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondent to forthwith release the entire compensation amount of Rs.86,54,829/- (Eighty six lakhs fifty four thousand eight hundred and twenty nine) along with the statutory interest against acquisition of 40 decimals of land belonging to the petitioner under “The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

¶17

And

¶18

For issuance of such other Writ/Rule/Order/Directions as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.”

¶19

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the land in the present case was acquired by National Highway Authority for the purposes of construction of National Highway way back in the year 2000-2001. The National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) paid certain amount to the State Government by treating the land as Gair Majurwa i.e. Government land. However, the learned counsel has referred to Letter No.940 dated 03.09.2015 issued by the office of Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh wherein certain communications/ decisions have been mentioned indicating that some portion of the

¶20

land is not government land. The learned counsel submits that under such circumstances, the petitioner is entitled for compensation, which has not been paid to the petitioner, and therefore, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶21

4. The learned counsel for the NHAI has opposed the prayer and submitted that once the amount has already been paid to the State government, subsequent communication and decisions of the State government has no value and if at all the petitioner has any dispute, then the same is a title dispute between the private party and NHAI, in which, the State would also be a necessary party.

¶22

5. The learned counsel has referred to Section 3H (4) of the National Highways Act and submitted that such dispute can be resolved through a competent court of civil jurisdiction. She submits that the competent authority to refer such dispute is the District Land Acquisition Officer. She has also submitted that the petitioner may approach District Land Acquisition Officer and there can be no reason that the dispute be not referred to the court by the said authority. NHAI will have no objection if the dispute is referred for adjudication by the court.

¶23

6. She has also relied upon the judgments passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5082 of 2017 dated 19.07.2023 and also the judgment passed in W.P.(C) No. 1832 of 2017 decided on 12.05.2023 wherein various other judgments have also been referred.

¶24

7. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that after the acquisition of land way back in the year 2000-2001, there has been certain developments and the petitioner is claiming certain right arising out of such subsequent developments.

¶25

8. This Court is of the considered view that there is dispute in connection with right, title and interest in connection with the acquired land by NHAI and such dispute cannot be resolved through writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief as prayed for by the petitioner in this writ petition.

¶26

¶27

9. The law is well settled that the dispute regarding title is to be adjudicated by a competent court of civil jurisdiction upon decision being taken in terms of Section 3H (4) of the National Highways Act.

¶28

10. Accordingly, to get the dispute adjudicated, the petitioner is at liberty to approach concerned District Land Acquisition Officer and in view of the points raised and recorded herein above, the said authority is directed to pass appropriate order within the period of one month from the date of filing of such petition so that the dispute is ultimately adjudicated through a competent court of civil jurisdiction. The order to be passed by the concerned District Land Acquisition Officer be communicated to the concerned parties through speed post.

¶29

11. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶30

12. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed.

¶31

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶32

Saurav/-

¶33

Ramdev v. the Secretary Department of Land Revenue and Land Reforms

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ramdev v. the Secretary Department of Land Revenue and Land Reforms

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

Sukra Kramali and 76 Others Through Its Shri Anjani Kumar Pandey General Secretary Vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

The Project Officer Madhuban Colliery Of Ms Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Through Piyush Kisore Vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary Ministry Of Labour Govt Of India And Ors.

Bokaro Steel Workers Union Through Its General Secretary Birendra Nath Chaubey Vs Labour

Abhishek Srivastava Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ms Gumla Traders through Its Proprietor Balkeshwar Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Bharat Mishra Vs State of Jharkhand Th.C.B.I.