Sitaram Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand

The Deputy Commissioner, Medininagar, Palamau 6. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Palamau … CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR Respondents For the Petitioner For the Respondent-State For the Respondent-NHAI ----- : Mr. Nandan Prasad, Advocate : Mr. Amitesh Kr Geasen, AC to AAG-IA : Mrs. Sweety Topno, Advocate Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, Advocate ----- Order No. 04 Dated: 18.07.2023 The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondents to determine the market value of the land and a pucca house constructed over the land appertaining to Plot No. 262 (622/16/262 in the notice), Khata No. 32 (152 in the notice), Thana No. 282, Village-Karma Kala, measuring an area of 5.60 decimals (mentioned 0.00 in the notice), as the said land has been acquired for widening of NH-98 from Hariharganj to Pandwa More.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the process of acquisition of the land of village/mouza- Karma Kala, the aforesaid land of the petitioner was also acquired. Accordingly, Land Acquisition Case No. 08/2017-18 was instituted. Notices dated

20.02.2021 and 21.03.2021 under Section 3-G of the National Highways Act, 1956 were also issued to the petitioner for producing relevant documents with respect to the land as well as house constructed over the same. In the said notices, the area of the land was shown as 0.00 acre, however, according to the petitioner, 5.62 decimals of land of aforesaid plot and khata was acquired.

It is further submitted that in the said land acquisition 2 proceeding, the petitioner was paid compensation amount of Rs.14,97,379/- which is grossly undervalued. The petitioner made an application before the respondent no. 6 – the District Land Acquisition Officer, Palamau for enhancement of compensation, however, the same was not responded, which has compelled him to prefer the present writ petition.

It is jointly submitted by learned counsel for the State respondents as well as the respondent-NHAI that since the petitioner seeks enhancement of compensation determined by the competent authority in lieu of acquisition of the land and structure, he has an efficacious/statutory remedy of taking recourse of Section 3-G(5) of the Act, 1956.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering that the petitioner has the efficacious/statutory remedy under Section 3-G(5) of the Act, 1956, he is given liberty to prefer an application in this regard before the respondent no. 6. On receipt of the said application, the respondent no. 6 shall refer the matter to the Additional Collector, Palamau-cum-Arbitrator under the Act, 1956 within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said application.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid liberty and direction. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Manish