Jharkhand High Court
Sail Through M.D.Bokaro Steel Plant vs Ishwarmani Sahu & Ors on 16 January, 2024
Author: Subhash Chand
Bench: Subhash Chand
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A.No. 212 of 2018
SAIL through M.D.Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro
Steel City, Bokaro .... ... Appellant
Versus
Ishwarmani Sahu & Ors. .... ... Respondents
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
For the Appellant : Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Nawal Kishore Pandey, A.C. to
S.C. ( L & C) I.
--------
Order No. 09/ dated 16.01.2024
I.A.No. 5240 of 2018
The instant Interlocutory Application is for condonation of
delay of 103 days in preferring this appeal against the impugned
Judgment.
2. The grounds shown in para 4 & 5 of the I.A. is found
sufficient.
3. The learned Counsel for the respondents has no objection
for the same.
4. The delay of 103 days in preferring this appeal is hereby
condoned.
5. Accordingly, I.A.No. 5240 of 2018 stands disposed of.
The instant Interlocutory Application is with the prayer to
grant leave to challenge the award passed in L.A. (Ref.) Case
No.132 of 1986 by way of appeal under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act on the ground that though the BSL is a necessary
party before the Land Acquisition Judge, but the claimant has
not impleaded SAIL/Bokaro Steel Limited as party respondent
and the Appellant-Company will suffer irreparable loss if not
granted leave to challenge this appeal.
2. Since the land was acquired for the Company itself and the
amount of compensation and interest which was awarded by the
learned court-below was excessive which was enhanced by
passing the impugned order.
3. The learned Counsel for the respondent opposed the
contentions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant.
4. Admittedly, the land in question was acquired for the
Company SAIL/BSL the compensation for the acquired land was
also to be paid by the Company itself.
5. In view of the above the leave is granted to challenge the
impugned Judgment by way of this appeal.
6. Accordingly, I.A.No.5241 of 2018 stands disposed of.
The instant Interlocutory Application is with the prayer to
ignore the defect No. 3 & 6 as indicated by the Office or to send
the certified copy of the original decree to the learned court-below
for necessary correction.
2. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that in
L.A. (Ref.) Case No.132 of 1986 in the Judgment itself there are
22 applicants while in the decree name of 20 applicants are
shown.
3. From bare perusal of the decree in L.A. (Ref.) Case No. 132
of 1986, it is found that same has not been passed in view of the
Judgment passed in L.A. (Ref.) Case No. 132 of 1986 as it is
apparent that out of the 22 applicants, the name of 17 applicants
are mentioned therein while the name of the four Opp. Parties
Judhisthir Mahato, Chintamani Mahto, Kumia Bala Dasi, Budhu
Teli have been mentioned as applicant. As such there is major
discrepancy in the name of the parties as shown in the Judgment
and the decree itself. For correction of the same, decree is
required to be sent back to the learned court-below to correct the
same in view of the Judgment.
4. Accordingly, the prayer sought in this I.A. is hereby allowed.
5. Office is directed to send back the decree to the learned
court-below to make the requisite correction therein in view of the
Judgment passed in L.A.(Ref.) Case No. 132 of 1986.
6. I.A. No. 6032 of 2021 stands disposed of.
Learned Counsel Mr. Ankit Vishal on behalf of appellant, on
behalf of State, learned Counsel Mr. Nawal Kishore Pandey, A.C.
to S.C. (L & C) are present.
2. In view of the office note, notices were issued to Respondent
No. 1 to 22 and 24 to 27.
3. The notices were served to respondent No.3,4,5,11,12,13 &
20 personally; while notice to respondent No.6,7 & 15 were served
through their brother and notice to respondent No.24 was served
through his son. Therefore, service of respondent No.
3,4,5,11,12,13 & 20, 6,7,15 & 24 are found sufficient.
4. Respondent No.1,2,8,9,10,14,16,17,18,19,21,22,25 & 27 are
reported to have died.
5. The learned Counsel for the appellant has sought time to
substitute the legal heirs of them for the same three weeks' time
is granted.
6. List on 20.02.2024.
(Subhash Chand, J.)
P.K.S.
