Ajay Kumar Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2332 Jhar

                                   1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                W.P.(C) No. 987 of 2021

1. Ajay Kumar Mahto
2. Niranjan Mahto
3. Rup Chand Mahto
4. Jawahar Lal Mahto                          ...   ...      Petitioners
                                  Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Government of
   Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas, Bokaro
5. The Circle Officer, Chas, Bokaro
6. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Bokaro
7. The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Govindpur,
   Dhanbad                                    ...   ...      Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
                              -----

For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For the Respondent Nos.1 to 6 : Mr. Vineet Prakash, AC to SC-IV For the Respondent No. 7 : Mrs. Sweety Topno, Advocate Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, Advocate

-----

Order No. 05 Dated: 17.07.2023

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the proposal made by the respondent no. 3 - the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro to transfer the raiyati land of the petitioner appertaining to Plot No. 1425, Khata No. 52, Khewat No. 2, Village-Jamgoria, Thana No. 53, District-Bokaro, measuring an area of 65 decimals to the respondent no. 7 - the Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Govindpur, Dhanbad without any compensation treating the same to be the Government land and without taking into consideration the objections raised by the petitioners. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to release and pay compensation to the petitioners with respect of the aforesaid raiyati lands in terms with the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1956").

2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 6 stating inter alia that the land in question is a government land and, therefore, the petitioners cannot be granted compensation for the said land.

3. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits

that the petitioners are claiming compensation for the said land in terms with judgment and decree dated 29.11.1997 and 12.12.1997 respectively passed by Sub-Judge-I, Bokaro at Chas in Title Suit No. 90/1984 for which the rent was also paid to the government till 2016.

4. It has, however, been contended by the State respondents that the State of Bihar (as it was then) or its authorities were not the party in the said suit.

5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners may be permitted to make an application(s) before the competent authority under the Act, 1956 requesting inter alia to refer the matter for an adjudication under Section 3-H(4) of the said Act.

6. Considering the said submission, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners make application(s) before the competent authority under the Act, 1956 i.e., the respondent no. 6 - the District Land Acquisition Officer, Bokaro who, on receipt of the same, shall take appropriate decision with respect to referring the matter to the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction under Section 3-H(4) of the said Act for adjudication of the dispute within 30 days from the date of filing of the said application(s).

(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Manish