Sunil Majhi vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 1349 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Sunil Majhi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 January, 2025

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  W.P.(C) No.6215 of 2023
                               -----

1. Sunil Majhi

2. Chhotka Majhi @ Chhotu Majhi Both sons of Late Junu Majhi @ Rashmani Manjhian, Village Hariharpur, Tola Lerhardih, P.S. Nirsa, District Dhanbad.

.......... Petitioners.

-Versus-

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad.

3. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad.

4. Maithon Power Ltd., through its General Manager, Gonga Maithon, P.S. Chirkunda, (Maithon OP), District Dhanbad.

5. The Chief Executive Officer, Maithon Power Ltd., Gonga Maithon, P.S. Chirkunda, (Maithon OP), District Dhanbad.

.......... Respondents.

-----

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

-----

For the Petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanket Kumar, A.C. to A.A.G. V For Res. Nos.4 & 5 : Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gododia, Advocate

-----

Order No.06 Date: 02.01.2025

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners confines the prayer to the

extent of issuance of direction upon the respondent no.4 to

pay suitable compensation to the petitioners in terms of

judgment/award dated 19th July, 2011 passed by the Land

Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad in L.A. Ref. Case no.22 of 2010.

2. Learned counsel for respective respondents raise preliminary

objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition on

the ground that the petitioners instead of taking recourse

provided under Order XXI CPC have directly filed the present

writ petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It is further submitted that the aforesaid judgment/award

dated 19th July, 2011 is deemed to be a decree in terms with

the provision of Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering

the aforesaid objection raised by respective counsel for the

respondents, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present

writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed as not

maintainable.

4. The petitioners are, however, at liberty to take appropriate

recourse as available under law seeking execution of the

judgment/award dated 19th July, 2011.

(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Sanjay/