Dukhu Ram Kuiry vs State Of Jharkhand Thr.Its Sec on 25 January, 2011

[Cites 0, Cited by 29]

Jharkhand High Court

Dukhu Ram Kuiry vs State Of Jharkhand Thr.Its Sec on 25 January, 2011

Bench: R.K. Merathia

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
         W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2008 and W.P.(C) No. 5990 of 2008
                                  ---
        Dukhu Ram Kuiry                          Petitioner (in WPC 6328/08)
        Raja Ram Kairy & another                 Petitioners (in WPC 5990/08)
                                      Versus
         The State of Jharkhand through the
         Secretary, Department of Water Resources,
         Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi & others      Respondents (in both cases)
                                       ---
        CORAM:      The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Merathia
                                       ---
        For the Petitioners:   Mr. M. Jagannath, Advocate
        For the Respondents: Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, JC to SC (L&C)
                                      ---
5.25.01.2011

Mr. Jagannath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the cases, submitted that the petitioners have not been paid compensation for the house situated at plot nos. 10 & 11, Khata No. 55.

2. Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the State in both the cases, referring to the counter-affidavit, submitted that no residential house was found in the said land and moreover, plot no. 11 was recorded as 'Purani Parti' and therefore, petitioners cannot claim payment of compensation against houses.

3. In reply, Mr. Jagannath referring to the amendment petition, submitted that the house was found by the concerned authorities.

4. Thus, there is a dispute whether petitioners had their houses at the time of acquisition of the land or not. In my opinion, the matter can be re-inquired.

5. Accordingly, petitioners are permitted to make a fresh representation before the concerned authority who will get the matter inquired. If it is found that at the time of acquisition, house of the petitioners was there, he will pass orders for compensation as well as for issuance of Vikash Pustika, etc. and other benefits under the rehabilitation scheme. If he finds that at the time of acquisition there existed no house of the petitioners, he will pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioners. This exercise should be completed within three months from the date of receipt of such representation.

It is made clear that this court has not gone into the merits of the cases of the parties.

With this observation and direction, these writ petitions are disposed of.

(R.K. Merathia, J) Ranjeet/

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court