Disposed

Janeshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC1 Jul 2024WPC/3159/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged rejection of his land acquisition compensation claim based on a district-level committee's decision made without notice or hearing to him. Following an earlier order in an identical matter, the court quashed the decision and directed the Additional Collector to reconsider afresh with a hearing within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Decision dated 09.11.2017 quashed; Additional Collector, Ranchi directed to pass fresh order in accordance with law with opportunity of hearing, preferably within twelve weeks.

Janeshwar Prasad Singh Vs State of Jharkhand — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 3159 of 2020

¶3

---

¶4

Janeshwar Prasad Singh

¶5

… … Petitioner Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶8

The General Manager (Revenue), Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi

¶9

The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi

¶10

The Additional Collector, Ranchi

¶11

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi

¶12

The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ranchi

¶13

The Circle Officer, Burmu, District- Ranchi

¶14

The Circle Officer, Khalari, District- Ranchi

¶15

…. … Respondents

¶16

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶17

For the Petitioner : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Krishna Prajapati, A.C. to S.C.-V For the Resp.-CCL : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate

¶18

Order No. 08

¶19

Dated: 01.07.2024

¶20

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the decision taken by the district level committee headed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi (the respondent no. 5) in its minutes of meeting dated 09.11.2017 with respect to payment of compensation in Case No. 305/15-16 relating to the petitioner which has been communicated to him under Right to Information Act, 2005 vide letter no. 530 (ii) dated 31.12.2019 (Anneuxre-4 to the writ petition) issued by the Circle Officer, Khalari (the respondent no. 9) intimating rejection of his claim by the said committee for verification of the revenue records for the purpose of payment of compensation for acquisition of his land appertaining to Khata No. 41, plot nos. 399 & 408 measuring an area of 3.36 acres situated at Mouza- Bishrampur,

¶21

¶22

P.O. & P.S.- Khalari, District- Ranchi on the ground that the rent receipts presented by him do not tally with the revenue records, rather the same appear to be suspicious.

¶23

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case is squarely covered by the order dated 11.09.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3155 of 2020 (Uma Shankar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and hence the same may also be disposed of in terms with the said order.

¶24

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective respondents accept the said fact that the present case is squarely covered by the order dated 11.09.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3155 of 2020.

¶25

4. Considering the said submission of learned counsel for the parties, it is pertinent to refer the relevant paragraphs of the order dated 11.09.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3155 of 2020 which are quoted hereunder:

¶26

“8. So far as the rejection of the claim of the petitioner is concerned, the same seems to be on account of certain discrepancies in the signatures of the revenue officials in the rent receipts when compared with the revenue records and the same also appears to be based on a report of committee constituted for the said purpose. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner was neither noticed nor given an opportunity to appear before the committee along with the relevant documents to put forward his case and only on the basis of the decision of the committee, which was behind the back of the petitioner, the subsequent rejection by the information as contained in Memo dated 31.12.2019 has been intimated to the petitioner.

¶27

9. In view of the aforesaid facts, therefore, the order dated 9.11.2017 passed by the respondent no. 5 which has been

¶28

¶29

communicated to the petitioner by the respondent no. 9 vide letter as contained in Memo No.531(II) dated 31.12.2019 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and therefore the same is quashed and set aside with a direction to the respondent no. 5 to pass a fresh order in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. While reconsidering the case in its entirety, the respondent no. 5 shall also give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.”

¶30

5. Accordingly, the decision taken by the district level committee headed by the respondent no. 5 vide its minutes of meeting dated 09.11.2017 communicated to the petitioner vide letter no. 530 (ii) dated 31.12.2019 issued by the respondent no. 9 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and therefore the same is quashed and set aside with a direction to the respondent no. 5 to pass a fresh order in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. While considering the case in its entirety, the respondent no. 5 shall

¶31

also give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶32

6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶33

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶34

Ritesh/

¶35

Janeshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janeshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd. through Its Deputy Manager Prafull Choudhary Vs Anita Devi

Ravindra Mahto Alias Chhota Beyas Alias Ravindra Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nagendra Das Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Anant Kumar Dubey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Binod Anand Alias Prajapati Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sangeeta Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand