Sail Through M.D.Bokaro Steel Plant vs Mathur Teli (Sahu) & Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 470 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Sail Through M.D.Bokaro Steel Plant vs Mathur Teli (Sahu) & Ors on 16 January, 2024

Author: Subhash Chand

Bench: Subhash Chand

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
               F.A.No. 220 of 2018
SAIL through M.D.Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro
Steel City, Bokaro                 ....      ... Appellant
                      Versus
Mathur Teli (Sahu) & Ors.          ....     ... Respondents
                     --------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

For the Appellant : Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anup Kumar Agrawal, A.C. to G.A.IV.

--------

Order No. 13/ dated 16.01.2024 I.A. No. 5258 of 2018

The instant Interlocutory Application is for condonation of

delay of 105 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 105 days in preferring this appeal is hereby

condoned.

5. Accordingly, I.A.No. 5258 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.

46 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 respondents 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.5259 of 2018 stands disposed of.

In view of the order dated 18.01.2023, the appeal was

abated against the Res. No.1 & Res. No.2.

2. Notices were issued to respondent No. 4(a), 4(b), 5(a), 5(b),

5(c) and Respondent No. 6 to 9.

3. Notice issued to respondent No.4(a), 4(b), 5(a), 5(b), 6 & 7

were served personally while notice issued to respondent No.5(c)

was served through his brother. Respondent No.9 appeared

through Vakalatnama. Therefore, service of notice to them is

found sufficient.

4. So far as the notice to respondent No.8 is concerned, the

same returned unserved.

5. The learned Counsel for the appellant is directed to take

fresh steps for service of notice to Respondent No.8.

6. Requisites for the same be filed under registered cover with

A/D and ordinary process as well within two weeks.

7. List on 20.02.2024.

(Subhash Chand, J.) P.K.S.