Triveni Sao v. The State of Jharkhand
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioners: For the State: For the NHAI: ----- Mr. S. K. Sharma Mr. Ramchander Sahu Mr. Amit Mishra, A.C to Sr. S.C-II Ms. Sweety Topno ----- 04/27.02.2023 At the request of learned counsel for the petitioners, the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh-cum-Arbitrator under the National Highways Act, 1956 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1956’] is permitted to be impleaded as the respondent No.4 in the present writ petition. Let necessary insertion in the cause title of the present writ petition be made by learned counsel for the petitioners in course of the day. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to make payment of appropriate compensation along with interest to the petitioners in terms with the letter as contained in memo No. 1535 dated
12.11.2022 issued by the respondent No.3 to the respondent No.2 after re-measurement of the structure situated over the land appertaining to Khata No. 495, Plot Nos. 8835/1 & 8836/2, Village+P.S-Barhi, District-Hazaribagh, measuring an area of 0.0370 Acre & 0.0230 Acre respectively for which Award Nos. 16 & 20 were prepared in L. A. Case No. 28/2013-14 and out of 21 Decimals of acquired land, compensation was paid only for 18 Decimals (the petitioners have 1/3 share out of 21 Decimals of land). Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to make payment of appropriate compensation to the petitioners treating Plot Nos. 8835/1 & 8836/2 as commercial plots in place of residential plots as Plot No. 8836/3 of the same Khata has been treated as commercial land and as per the enquiry report dated
25.01.2022 of the Amin, there are house and shop situated over Plot Nos. 8835/1 & 8836/2. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent No.3 while preparing the aforesaid awards has not taken note of the three-storied building existing over the land in question and compensation for acquisition of the said land and building has been paid on residential rate instead of commercial rate. Mr. Amit Mishra, learned A.C to Sr. S.C-II appearing on behalf of the respondent-State as well as Ms. Sweety Topno, learned counsel for the respondent-NHAI, raise a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground that the petitioners have got alternative/statutory/efficacious remedy of preferring an application under Section 3(G)(5) of the Act, 1956 before the respondent No.4 against the aforesaid awards prepared for acquisition of the land in question. It is also submitted that the awarded amount has already been received by the petitioner No.3 as the representative of the claimants. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view that the petitioners have got alternative/statutory/efficacious remedy of preferring an application under Section 3(G)(5) of the Act, 1956 before the respondent No.4 against the amount of compensation calculated in terms with the awards prepared for acquisition of the land in question, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition on merit and the same is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioners are however at liberty to take recourse of Section 3(G)(5) of the Act, 1956 for redressal of their grievance. Satish/-
(RAJESH SHANKAR, J)
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.