Suresh Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

04/11.03.2025 The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner, whose land has been taken over by the respondents for construction of expressway under ‘Bharatmala Project’ without taking recourse of the land acquisition law and without following the directions issued by the Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand vide letter No. 334 dated 14.05.2009.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in peaceful cultivating possession of the land appertaining to Khata No. 49, Plot No. 56, Thana No. 28, Mouza-Sadmakhurd P.S-Petarwar, District-Bokaro, measuring an area of 1.56 Acres, which was initially settled in favour of his ancestors, namely, Ganni Mahto, Munna Mahto and Ramjit Mahto in the year 1945. Ganni Mahto and Munna Mahto transferred their respective shares to the sons of Ramjit Mahto in the year 1974 and 1980 through registered sale deeds. Thereafter, the petitioner’s father came in cultivating possession of the said land. The Jamabandi of the said land was also created in the name of the

¶15

1

¶16

petitioner’s ancestors. Subsequently, the name of the petitioner’s father was recorded in Register-II and rent receipts were also issued in his name in the year 1975 and 2002.

¶17

It is further submitted that after settlement of the said land in the year 1945, the petitioner’s ancestors by dint of hard labour and incurring huge expense, converted the said land into cultivable land and remained in cultivating possession and perfected their indefeasible right over the same.

¶18

It is further submitted that the Department of Revenue, Land Reforms and Registration, Government of Jharkhand vide letter No. 334 dated 14.05.2009 resolved that the persons having possession of the land for more than 30 years and Jamabandi running in their names in Register-II shall be paid compensation equal to the ‘Kayami Raiyats’ with respect to acquisition for government projects. Despite the said fact, the possession of the said land has been taken by the concerned respondent authorities for construction of expressway under ‘Bharatmala Project’ without lawfully acquiring the same and paying appropriate compensation to the petitioner.

¶19

Ms. Ruby Yadav, learned A.C to S.C-VI appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, submits that the petitioner’s claim is required to be factually examined by the competent authority under National Highways Act, 1956 i.e. the respondent No.4-the District Land Acquisition Officer, Bokaro. Hence, if the petitioner prefers a fresh representation in this regard before the respondent No.4, an appropriate decision will be taken by the said respondent within a time frame.

¶20

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of the prayer made in the present writ petition, without entering into the merit of the case, the petitioner is given liberty to prefer a fresh representation along with the relevant documents in this regard before the respondent No.4-the District Land Acquisition Officer, Bokaro. On receipt of the said representation,

¶21

2

¶22

Satish/-

¶23

the respondent No.4, after verifying the relevant records and on providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/his representative (if so needed), shall take an appropriate informed decision in accordance with law within eight weeks from the date of filing of the said representation.

¶24

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

¶25

(RAJESH SHANKAR, J)

¶26

3

Suresh Mahto v. State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Mahto v. State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

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

Rakesh Pal Vs the State of Jharkhand.

New Advocates Clerk Association Jharkhand High Court through Its President Jitendra Kumar Malityar Vs the Registrar General Jharkhand High Court

Baratu Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Keramat Ali Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sheoji Singh Vs Indian Overseas Bank, Represented through Its General Manager

Cinthia Tanjappa Vs the Union of India, through Its Joint Secretary, (Psp and Cpo)