The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Govt. of v. Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No. 2251 of 2014 1. Rajendra Sao, S/o Late Jivdhan Sao 2. Shiv Prasad Sao, S/o Late Banshi Sao 3. Nanku Sao @ Nanku, S/o Late Suraj Nath Sao (Deleted vide order dt. 26.11.2019) 3(i) Lila Devi, W/o Late Sukhdev Saw (Daughter in law of Late Nanku Sao @ Nanku 3(ii) Baldev Saw, S/o Late Nanku Sao @ Nanku 3(iii) Sahdev Saw, S/o Late Nanku Sao @ Nanku 3(iv) Sunil Saw, S/o Late Nanku Sao @ Nanku All resident of Village Pochara, P.O. Barkakana, P.S. Patratu, Petitioners District Ramgarh … … 1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Versus Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi 2. Dy. Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. & P.S. Ramgarh, District Ramgarh 3. District Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. Hazaribag, District Hazaribagh 4. District Land Acquisition Officer, Ramgarh, P.O. & P.S. Ramgarh, District Ramgarh 5. Union of India through Defence Estates Officer, Bihar & Orissa Circle, Danapur Cant., P.O. & P.S. Danapur, District Patna (Bihar) 6. Section Defense Estates Officer, Ramgarh Cantonment Board, Ramgarh, P.O. & P.S. Ramgarh, Dist. Ramgarh … … Respondents With W. P. (C) No. 2252 of 2014
Legal Reasoning
1. Arjun Munda, S/o Sri Ram Kishun Munda 2. Bhim Munda, S/o Sri Ram Kishun Munda Both petitioners resident at Village Piri, P.O. Barkakana, P.S. Petitioners Patratu, District Ramgarh … … 1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Versus Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi 2. Dy. Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. & P.S. Ramgarh, District Ramgarh 3. District Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. Hazaribag, District Hazaribagh 4. Dy. Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. & P.S. Ramgarh, District Ramgarh 5. Union of India through Defence Estates Officer, Bihar & Orissa Circle, Danapur Cant., P.O. & P.S. Danapur, District Patna (Bihar) 6. Section Defense Estates Officer, Ramgarh Cantonment Board, Ramgarh, P.O. & P.S. Ramgarh, Dist. Ramgarh … … Respondents With W. P. (C) No. 2263 of 2014 2 1. Chamru Karmali, S/o Late Gobra Karmali (Deleted vide order dated 25.11.2019) 1(i) Jitendra Karmali, S/o Late Chamaru Karmali 1(ii) Mukesh Karmali, S/o late Chamaru Karmali 2. Mostmat Padum Devi, W/o Late Bansilal Karmali 3. Mostmat Ganga Devi, W/o Late Bhuneshwar Karmali, All residing at the village Pochra, P.O. Barkakana, P.S. Patratu, Petitioners District Ramgarh … … 1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Versus Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi 2. Dy. Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. & P.S. Ramgarh, District Ramgarh 3. District Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. Hazaribag, District Hazaribagh 4. District Land Acquisition Officer, Ramgarh, P.O. & P.S. Ramgarh, District Ramgarh 5. Union of India through Defence Estates Officer, Bihar & Orissa Circle, Danapur Cant., P.O. & P.S. Danapur, District Patna (Bihar) 6. Section Defense Estates Officer, Ramgarh Cantonment Board, Ramgarh, P.O. & P.S. Ramgarh, Dist. Ramgarh … … Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY 14/21.06.2023 1. 2. For the Petitioners --- For the Respondents For the U.O.I. --- : Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, Adv. : Mr. Ranjan Prasad Sinha, Adv. : Mr. Aditya Raman, Advocate : Mr. Vineet Prakash, Advocate : Ms. Shalini Shahdeo, Advocate : Mr. Laxman Kumar, Advocate Learned counsel for the parties are present. These writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: - W.P.(C) No. 2251 of 2014 “For issuance of writ/s, order/s, direction/s in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dated 06.9.2013 passed by Dy. Commissioner, Ramgarh (Respondent No. 2) in Misc. Case No. 30/2012 and analogous five cases, whereby and where under, by discarding the letter No. 249 dated 26.04.2013 issued by District Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribagh (Respondent No. 3) and also reply submitted by the Petitioner in the aforesaid proceeding on 21.6.2013 and even in absence of any documents to substantiates the claim of the petitioners with regards to payment of compensation against his acquired land by the Ministry of Defence, rather stressing reliance upon the vague document submitted by the Defence Estate Officer, Danapur and also without application of judicious mind, the claim of the petitioners has been turn down with erroneous finding by withholding that the petitioners including the petitioners of the instant writ applications are not entitled to get any reliefs by way of compensation or return of land, since the predecessors of applicants had received compensation with respect to the land acquired for, irrespective of no 3 documents to establish that the petitioners have been paid their compensation. For the grant of other relief/s to which the petitioners are entitled for.” And/Or W.P. (C) No. 2252 of 2014 “For issuance of writ/s in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dated 06.9.2013 passed by Dy. Commissioner, Ramgarh (Respondent No. 2) in Misc. Case No. 27/2012 and analogous five cases, whereby and where under, by discarding the letter No. 249 dated 26.04.2013 issued by District Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribagh (Respondent No. 3) and also reply submitted by the Petitioner in the aforesaid proceeding on 21.6.2013 and even in absence of any documents to substantiates the claim of the petitioners with regards to payment of compensation against his acquired land by the Ministry of Defence, rather stressing reliance upon the vague document submitted by the Defence Estate Officer, Danapur and also without application of judicious mind, the claim of the petitioners has been turn down with erroneous finding by withholding that the petitioners including the petitioners of the instant writ applications are not entitled to get any reliefs by way of compensation or return of land, since the predecessors of applicants had received compensation with respect to the land acquired for, irrespective of no documents to establish that the petitioners have been paid their compensation. For the grant of other relief/s to which the petitioners are entitled for.” And/Or W.P. (C) No. 2263 of 2014 “For issuance of writ/s, order/s, direction/s in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dated 06.9.2013 passed by Dy. Commissioner, Ramgarh (Respondent No. 2) in Misc. Case No. 32/2012 and analogous five cases, whereby and where under, by discarding the letter No. 249 dated 26.04.2013 issued by District Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribagh (Respondent No. 3) and also reply submitted by the Petitioner in the aforesaid proceeding on 21.6.2013 and even in absence of any documents to substantiates the claim of the petitioners with regards to payment of compensation against his acquired land by the Ministry of Defence, rather stressing reliance upon the vague document submitted by the Defence Estate Officer, Danapur and also without application of judicious mind, the claim of the petitioners has been turn down with erroneous finding by withholding that the petitioners including the petitioners of the instant writ applications are not entitled to get any reliefs by way of compensation or return of land, since the predecessors of applicants had received compensation with respect to the land acquired for, irrespective of no documents to establish that the petitioners have been paid their compensation. For the grant of other relief/s to which the petitioners are entitled for.” And/Or 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that their grievance is that the land of the petitioner has been occupied by the defence, but no compensation was paid to them. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the property involved in the present case was acquired in L.A. Case No. 7/1940-41 and not in L.A. Case No. 6/1940-41 and the compensation was also paid. The learned counsel submits that the payment of compensation was made to the 4 ancestors of the petitioners and the property is rightly in possession of the defence. 5. At this, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw these writ petitions. 6. 7. These writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. Mukul (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)