Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 26896 (JHR)

BABLU GOPAL CHAUDHARI v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY

WPC/6384/2024 · 2025-01-16

Rajesh Shankar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No.6384 of 2024 ----- 1. Bablu Gopal Chaudhari, S/o Gopal Chaudhari, R/o Dighi, P.O., P.S. & District-Dumka. 2. Ravindra Chowdary, S/o Laxman Chowdary, R/o 1410- 1341/1342, Mata Temple Dhoolpet, Asifnagar, P.O. & P.S.-Asifnagar, District-Hyderabad. 3. Manikant Chaudhary, S/o Ashish Chaudhari, R/o Dighi, P.O., P.S. & District-Dumka. .......... Petitioners. -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 2. Deputy Commissioner, Dumka. 3. Circle Officer, Dumka. 4. Executive Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Division-1 Building, Dumka. 5. District Land Acquisition Officer, Dumka. .......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioners : Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate For the State : Ms. Nirupama, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-II ----- Order No.03 Date: 16.01.2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for and is allowed to correct the description of the petitioner no.2 mentioned in the cause title of the writ petition. 2. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioners, let District Land Acquisition Officer, Dumka be impleaded as respondent no.5 in the present case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to make necessary insertion in the cause title of the writ petition. 4. The present writ petition has been filed for restraining the respondent authorities from constructing P.C.C. road on the raiyati land of the petitioners appertaining to Jamabandi No.1, Dag No.142, measuring an area of 2.55 acres, Mouza- Taroun, Saraiyahat, District-Dumka without lawfully acquiring the same under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter be referred as the Act, 2013). In alternative the petitioners have prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondent authorities to pay compensation to the petitioners in terms with the provisions of the Act, 2013. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have the raiyati right over the aforesaid land and have been residing over the same along with their family members since long. Despite that, the respondent authorities have been constructing P.C.C. road utilising a part of the said land without lawfully acquiring the same. Under the said circumstance, the respondent authorities may be directed either to stop the construction of the P.C.C. road to the extent the same pertains to the land in question or in alternative they may be directed to pay suitable compensation to the petitioners in terms with the provisions of the Act, 2013. The petitioners have also represented the concerned authorities in this regard, however, the same have not yet been responded which has compelled the petitioners to prefer the present writ petition. 6. Ms. Nirupama, learned A.C. to Sr. S.C.-II, appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the aforesaid claim of -2- W.P. (C) No.6384 of 2024 the petitioners is required to be factually examined by the competent authority i.e. respondent no.5. Hence, if the petitioners prefer a fresh representation in this regard before the respondent no.5, an appropriate decision in accordance with law will be taken by the said respondent within a time frame. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of the prayer made in the writ petition, without entering into merit of the case, the petitioners are given liberty to prefer a fresh representation along with relevant documents in this regard before the respondent no.5-District Land Acquisition Officer, Dumka. On receipt of the said representation, the respondent no.5 after verifying the relevant records and on providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners/their representatives as well as on making an inquiry (if so needed), shall take an appropriate informed decision in accordance with law within eight weeks from the date of filing of the representation. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid liberty and direction. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Vikas/ -3- W.P. (C) No.6384 of 2024