(A) Shobha Pramanik Wife Of Late Kisto ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 June, 2024

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

(A) Shobha Pramanik Wife Of Late Kisto ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 June, 2024

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  W.P.(C) No.4198 of 2016
                             ------

1. (a) Shobha Pramanik Wife of Late Kisto Pada Pramanik aged about 62 years

(b) Shankari Pramanik D/O Late Kisto Pada Pramanik aged about 42 years

(d) Deepak Pramanik S/O Late Kisto Pada Pramanik aged about 37 years 1(a) to 1 (d) All R/o Aditya Enclave, Dindli Near Shiv Kali Mandir, P.O. Adityapur, P.S. Adityapur, Dist. Seraikela-Kharsawan ... Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. The Secretary Revenue, Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, At & P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

3. The Deputy Commissioner Saraikela-Kharsawan, At & P.O. Saraikela, and District Saraikela-Kharsawan.

4. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Saraikela-Kharsawan, At & P.O. Saraikela, and District Saraikela-Kharsawan

5. The Special Land Acquisition officer, At + P.O. Aditypur, P.S. Adityapur, Dist. Saraikela-Kharsawan

6. Managing Director, Jharkhand State Housing Board, At + P.O.- Harmu, P.S.- Argora, Dist.- Ranchi

7. The Executive Engineer, Jharkhand State Housing Board, At + P.O.+P.S. Adityapur, Dist. Saraikela-Kharsawan ... Respondents With W.P.(C) No.4246 of 2016

------

W.P.(C) No.4198 of 2016 & other allied cases 1 (a) Mohan Chandra Mahato, S/o Late Kritivas Mahato @ Bijaychandra Mahato, Aged about 61 years, resident of Ichchapur Gowalapara, Adityapur-2 P.O. and P.S.- RIT, Dist. Saraikela-

Kharsawan (Jharkhand)                                                  ...
Petitioner
                             Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. The Secretary Revenue, Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, At & P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

3. The Deputy Commissioner Saraikela-Kharsawan, At & P.O. Saraikela, and District Saraikela-Kharsawan.

4. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Saraikela-Kharsawan, At & P.O. Saraikela, and District Saraikela-Kharsawan

5. The Special Land Acquisition officer, Adityapur Industrial Area, Aditypur, At + P.O. + P.S. Adityapur, Dist. Seraikela-Kharsawan

6. The Managing Director, Jharkhand State Housing Board, At + P.O.- Harmu, P.S.- Argora, Dist.- Ranchi

7. The Executive Engineer, Jharkhand State Housing Board, At + P.O.+P.S. Adityapur, Dist. Seraikela-Kharsawan ... Respondents With W.P.(C) No.4248 of 2016

------

Chunna Mahatani Daughter of Late Haladhar Mahto, W/o Shree D.N. Mahto, Village- Dindli Basti, Tola Icchapur P.O. & P.S. Adtiyapur, District- Saraikela-Kharsawan ... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. The Secretary Revenue, Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, At & P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

3. The Deputy Commissioner Saraikela-Kharsawan, At & P.O. 2 W.P.(C) No.4198 of 2016 & other allied cases Saraikela, and District Saraikela-Kharsawan.

4. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Saraikela-Kharsawan At & P.O. Saraikela, and District Saraikela-Kharsawan

5. The Special Land Acquisition officer, At P.O. + P.S. Adityapur, Dist. Seraikela-Kharsawan

6. The Managing Director, Jharkhand State Housing Board, At + P.O.- Harmu, P.S.- Argora, Dist.- Ranchi

7. The Executive Engineer, Jharkhand State Housing Board, At + P.O.+P.S. Adityapur, Dist. Seraikela-Kharsawan ... Respondents

------

             For the Petitioners          : Mr. Asit Baran Mahto, Advocate
                                            Mr. Upendra Nath Maht, Advocate
             For the Respondents          : Mr. J. F. Toppo, GA V
                                            Mr. A. R. Kisku, AC to GA V
                                            Dr. Ashok Kr. Singh, Advocate
                                            Ms. Surabhi, AC to AAG II
                                            Mr. Praveeen Akhauri, SC (MINES) I
                                            Mr. Diva K. Roy, AC to SC (MINES) I
                                           ------
                                        PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties.

2. All these three Writ Petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction to the respondents for initiation of a fresh acquisition process under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as the deposit of amount of compensation in the Government treasury of the petitioners in respect of the acquisition of the land, cannot amount to payment of compensation, hence, these are the cases that the land acquisition proceeding 3 W.P.(C) No.4198 of 2016 & other allied cases shall be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

3. All these three writ petitions were filed basing upon the principle of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Another vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Others reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183 but keeping in view the fact that the Hon'ble Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Indore Development Authority (LAPSE-5 J.) vs. Manoharlal & Others reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 paragraph-365 if which reads as under:-

"365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183 : (2014) 2 SCC (Civ) 274] is hereby overruled and all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183 : (2014) 2 SCC (Civ) 274] has been followed, are also overruled.

The decision in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. [Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. v. State of T.N., (2015) 3 SCC 353 :

(2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 298] cannot be said to be laying down good law, is overruled and other decisions following the same are also overruled. In Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra [Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra, (2018) 3 SCC 412 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 426] , the aspect with respect to the proviso to Section 24(2) and whether "or" has to be read as "nor" or as "and" was not placed for consideration. Therefore, that decision too cannot prevail, in the light of the discussion in the present judgment." (Emphasis supplied) has overruled the decision of the said Pune Municipal Corporation & Another vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Others (supra) including all other decision in which Pune Municipal Corporation & Another vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Others (supra) has been followed; learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners modify their prayer and submits that the petitioners intend to file a representation to the respondent 4 W.P.(C) No.4198 of 2016 & other allied cases No.4 for payment of awarded amount and the respondent No.4 be directed to release the same in favour of the petitioners within a reasonable time.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents-State has no serious objection.

5. Considering the aforesaid facts, all these three writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.4 of all these writ petitions that in case the petitioners of all these writ petitions file representation for release of compensation amount awarded, the respondent No.4 of all these three writ petitions are directed to release the same in favour of the petitioners in accordance with law within eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this judgment along with the representation of the petitioners.

6. These writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 13th of May, 2024 AFR/ Animesh-Saroj 5 W.P.(C) No.4198 of 2016 & other allied cases

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court