IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
W.P.(PIL) No. 1892 Of 2011
With
I.A Nos. 1361 & 1512 Of 2011
-----
Mohammed Shakil Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Others Respondents
------
CORAM HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRAKASH TATIA
-----
For the Petitioner Ms. Srushti Thula
For the Respondent-State Mr.A.K.Sinha, AG, & Mr.R.R.Mishra, GP II
-----
7/12.05.2011
Heard counsel for the parties.
An application has come on behalf of the petitioner to amend the earlier
order. We do not think that the application deserves consideration for reasons to be stated later.
The application is accordingly dismissed.
The State Government has come up with a plan that instead of offering
land, they will offer constructed house/flat at a cost which would be much lower than the land,
say 10-15% of the construction cost, which may not exceed beyond Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty
thousand only), approximately to each of the families and the family which comes within
the entitlement zone will be allotted a house/flat.
The offer is not denied by the petitioner. However, their case is that there
are certain people whose houses are yet to be demolished, their cases may be considered.
Learned Advocate General is of the opinion that those who have lived in
the area which is earmarked for Poly Technic, when satisfies the test of residing, will be offered
the accommodation.
The offer is accepted by the petitioner. In that view of the matter,
direction is issued that the order which was earlier passed may not be implemented as such and
the offer made by the Advocate General that instead of land, constructed house/flat will be
given to those who fulfill the qualification delineated earlier with modification that those who
have lived in the premises of Poly Technic and has qualified the test of their residence of 10
years. This is added to earlier provision.
We direct that since the petitioner has taken a step back, the State should
also have made a step ahead in diluting the condition of 20 years to 10 years. In that view of the
matter, we direct that allotment of offer should be made as delineated above. The whole
exercise will be completed by the State, as far as possible, within 13 months.
With this observation, these I.As are disposed of. As there will be no
further purpose to keep this petition alive, it is consigned to records. In case required, the parties
will be at liberty to mention this case.
It is further directed that this issue will not be politicized by the petitioner
and the counsel for the petitioner should control the petitioner from politicizing the issue.
(Bhagwati Prasad, C.J.)
(Prakash Tatia, J.)
Dey