Disposed¶9

Ravindra Kumar Rao v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC18 Mar 2025WPC/434/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

National Highways Act 1956; Section 3-G(5); compensation enhancement; land acquisition Arbitrator; NH-114A Basukinath Deoghar Section; L.A. Case No. 26/2022-2023; Additional Collector Deoghar-cum-Arbitrator; award Rs. 3,37,240/-; writ petition disposed with liberty; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; Rajesh Shankar J; decided 18.03.2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application before respondent No. 4 for reference of his compensation claim to the Additional Collector, Deoghar-cum-Arbitrator under Section 3-G(5) of the Act, 1956, with a direction that the reference be made within 30 days of filing. ¶9

Ravindra Kumar Rao Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation proposed to be paid for acquisition of his house, is entitled to relief in this writ petition, or whether he should be directed to the statutory remedy of having the compensation determined by an Arbitrator under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956.

¶6

Court's answer

A petitioner aggrieved with the quantum of compensation proposed to be paid for acquisition of his house has an efficacious remedy to get the said compensation determined by an Arbitrator appointed for the said purpose by invoking Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner was given liberty to prefer a fresh application before respondent No. 4 (the District Land Acquisition Officer, Deoghar), who on receipt of the same shall refer the matter to the Additional Collector, Deoghar-cum-Arbitrator under the Act, 1956 within 30 days from the date of filing of the said application.

¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition disposed of by relegating the petitioner to the statutory remedy under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. The petitioner's house over the land appertaining to Khata No. 2, Plot Nos. 497 & 498, Mouza-Bahinga, Thana No. 355, District-Deoghar was acquired for construction of NH-114A (Basukinath Deoghar Section) vide L.A. Case No. 26/2022-2023, and an award of Rs. 3,37,240/- was prepared in his favour, which he contended was meagre. Held (Rajesh Shankar, J): a petitioner aggrieved with the quantum of compensation proposed for acquisition of his house has an efficacious remedy to have the compensation determined by an Arbitrator appointed for the purpose by invoking Section 3-G(5) of the Act, 1956. Liberty was given to prefer a fresh application before respondent No. 4 (District Land Acquisition Officer, Deoghar), who shall refer the matter to the Additional Collector, Deoghar-cum-Arbitrator within 30 days of filing.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 434 of 2025

¶3

Ravindra Kumar Rao ….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar 4. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Deoghar 5. The Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, National Highways Authority of India, Deoghar ….. Respondents ----- CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----For the Petitioner: Mr. H. S. Pandey For the State: Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, A.C to G.A-V For the NHAI: Ms. Sweety Topno -----

¶4

05/18.03.2025 The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondents to pay appropriate compensation to the petitioner in lieu of acquisition of his house situated over the land appertaining to Khata No. 2, Plot Nos. 497 & 498, Mouza-Bahinga, Thana No. 355, District-Deoghar for construction of NH-114A (Basukinath Deoghar Section) vide L. A. Case No. 26/2022-2023 as the award for meagre amount of Rs.3,37,240/- has been prepared in his favour.

¶5

Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, learned A.C to G.A-V appearing on behalf of the respondent-State as well as Ms. Sweety Topno, learned counsel for the respondent-NHAI, jointly submit that since the petitioner is aggrieved with the quantum of compensation proposed to be paid to him for acquisition of his residential house, he has got statutory remedy of invoking Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1956’] seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶6

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering that the petitioner is aggrieved with the quantum of compensation proposed to be paid to him for acquisition of his house in question, this Court is of the view that the

¶7

petitioner has got efficacious remedy to get the said compensation determined by an Arbitrator appointed for the said purpose by invoking Section 3-G(5) of the Act, 1956.

¶8

Hence, the petitioner is given liberty to prefer a fresh application in this regard before the respondent No.4, who on receipt of the same, shall refer the matter to the Additional Collector, Deoghar-cum-Arbitrator under the Act, 1956 within 30 days from the date of filing of the said application.

¶9

The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid liberty and direction.

¶10

(RAJESH SHANKAR, J)

¶11

Satish/-

Ravindra Kumar Rao v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Kumar Rao v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Nirmal Kachhap Alias Nirmal Munda Vs State of Jharkhand, through Secretary, Land and Revenue Department

Anita Rampal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sunil Kumar Ajmani Alias Sunil Ajmani Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bharat Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand, through Its Chief Secretary, Land and Reforms Department

Ashish Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Cholamandalam Invest and Finance Company Ltd. Thr Its Authorized Representative Sri Ranjeet Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand Thr the Secretary, Dept. of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha