Md. Daud Alam v. The State of Jharkhand
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
present writ petition is disposed of as not pressed at this stage with liberty to the
Provisions considered
Judgment
Operative part
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- Mr. Din Dayal Saha For the Petitioners: For Respondent Nos.1-4: Ms. Laxmi Murmu, G.P-I For Respondent No.5: Ms. Sweety Topno ----- 04/28.09.2022 The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to make payment of compensation to the petitioners as per the current market value for acquisition of their land and building situated over Plot No. 62, Mouza-Talbanna, Udhwa Bazar, J.B. No. 38, District-Sahibganj, measuring an area of 6 Kathas for construction/widening of NH-80. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset, while producing a copy of notice dated 10.06.2022 issued by the Additional Collector, Sahibganj-cum- Arbitrator under the National Highways Act, 1956 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1956’] in Arbitration Case No. 04/2022-23, submits that the petitioners intend to appear in the said arbitration case and hence he does not press the present writ petition at this stage. Ms. Laxmi Murmu, learned G.P-I appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1-4 as well as Ms. Sweety Topno, learned counsel for the respondent No.5, have got no objection to the same. Considering the said submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, the present writ petition is disposed of as not pressed at this stage with liberty to the petitioners to pursue Arbitration Case No. 04/2022-23, pending before the Additional Collector, Sahibganj-cum-Arbitrator under the Act, 1956. Let a copy of notice dated 10.06.2022 be kept on record. Satish/-
(RAJESH SHANKAR, J)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: present writ petition is disposed of as not pressed at this stage with liberty to the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
National Highways Act, 1956.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.