Dismissed¶¶24

Pindara Pradhan Alias Pindara Gaud And Anr. v. Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Jharkhand HC5 Jul 2024WPC/2934/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

land acquisition; Land Acquisition Act 1964; Regional Institute of Technology Jamshedpur; NIT Jamshedpur; boundary wall constructed on unacquired land; disputed question of fact; area of land acquired; maintainability of writ petition; withdrawal of writ petition with liberty; civil court remedy; limitation pendency period; Jharkhand High Court; Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi; Tarani Pradhan; Dev Sagar Gope; Meghnath Pradhan; Pindara Pradhan; Kashi Nath Pradhan; Arti Sardar.

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioners to move before the competent court of civil jurisdiction; period of pendency of the writ petitions to be taken into consideration for the purpose of limitation. ¶¶24

Pindara Pradhan Alias Pindara Gaud And Anr. Vs Land… — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners' land was in fact acquired for the Regional Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur (now NIT Jamshedpur), given their grievance that their land was not acquired although the Institute constructed a boundary wall over it. +1 more

¶¶22

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners' contentions with regard to the area of land acquired are disputed questions which cannot be the subject matter of a writ petition.

¶¶22

Key takeaways

The writ petitions were permitted to be withdrawn and stand dismissed, with liberty to the petitioners to move before the competent court of civil jurisdiction with regard to their grievance.ratio¶¶23
For the purpose of limitation, the period of pendency of these writ petitions shall be taken into consideration.ratio¶¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.), decision dated 05.07.2024 — Six connected writ petitions (W.P. (C) Nos. 2633, 2932, 2933, 2934, 7523 of 2016 and 2126 of 2017) arising out of acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1964 for the Regional Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur, now named National Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur. The petitioners' grievance was that their land had not been acquired although the Institute had constructed a boundary wall over it. Holding that the petitioners' contention with regard to the area of land acquired was disputed and could not be the subject matter of a writ petition, the Court allowed withdrawal and dismissed the petitions with liberty to pursue the grievance before the competent court of civil jurisdiction, directing that the period of pendency of the writ petitions be taken into consideration for the purpose of limitation.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (C) No. 2633 of 2016

¶3

----

¶4

TARANI PRADHAN .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS .... Respondents With W.P(C)/2932/2016 DEV SAGAR GOPE .... Petitioner

¶5

VS LAND REFORMS AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT .... Respondent

¶6

with

¶7

W.P(C)/2933/2016

¶8

MEGHNATH PRADHAN AND ANR .... Petitioner

¶9

VS LAND REFORMS AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT .... Respondent

¶10

with

¶11

W.P(C)/2934/2016

¶12

PINDARA PRADHAN ALIAS PINDARA GAUD AND ANR.... Petitioner

¶13

VS LAND REFORMS AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT .... Respondent with W.P(C)/7523/2016 KASHI NATH PRADHAN .... Petitioner VS LAND REFORMS AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT .... Respondent with W.P(C)/2126/2017 ARTI SARDAR .... Petitioner

¶14

¶15

THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS .... Respondents

¶16

¶17

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶18

For the Petitioner :- Mr. D.K.Chakraverty, Advocate Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Mayank Deep, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Yogesh Modi, AC to AAG-1A [W.P.(C) No.7523 of 2016] Mr.Manav Poddar, AC to AAG-1 [W.P.(C) No.2932 of 2016] 1

¶19

Mr. Neil Abhijit Toppo, AC to G.A-V [W.P.(C) No.2933 of 2016] Ms. Amrita Banerjee, AC to GP-1 Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate [W.P.(C) No.2633 of 2016] For Resp. NIT, Jamshedpur:Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate Mr. Pratiyush, Advocate Mrs.Pratibha Mahto, Advocate

¶20

17 /05.07.2024 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent NIT.

¶21

All these matters are arising out of Land Acquisition Act, 1964 with regard to acquisition of the land for Regional Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur, now named as-National Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur.

¶22

The grievance of the petitioners in all these cases are there that their land has not been acquired and inspite of that, boundary wall has been constructed by the said Institute. They tried to justify their action and on maintainability of the writ petition, however, the contention raised by them before this Court with regard to the area of land acquired for the said purpose are disputed which cannot be the subject matter of writ petition.

¶23

In view of the above, the learned counsels for the petitioners in respective writ petition(s) seek permission to withdraw these writ petitions with liberty to move before the competent court of civil jurisdiction with regard to their grievance.

¶24

Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.

¶25

For the purpose of limitation, the period of pendency of these writ petition, shall be taken into consideration.

¶26

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶27

SI/,

¶28

Pindara Pradhan Alias Pindara Gaud And Anr. v. Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pindara Pradhan Alias Pindara Gaud And Anr. v. Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baijnath Prasad Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Bajal Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Legal Manager Vs Rekha Devi And Ors.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Zinat Khatoon And Ors.

Parshuram Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kashi Nath Pradhan Vs Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Arvind Kumar Kashyap Vs the State of Jharkhand