IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 1606 of 2004
Bandhu Ram Mahto ........Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., Eastern Reason
Transmission, having office at Village-Ramchandrapur, P.O. P.S.
Gamharia, District-Saraikella, Kharsawan........Respondents
--------
Coram: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. MERATHIA
--------
For the Petitioner : Mr. J. Dubey, Advocate
For the Respondents : JC to SC Mines
--------
7/20/05/2010
Petitioner is claiming compensation in lieu of cutting of 27
Mango Trees from his field for laying 400 KV Electric Transmission
Line.
It is submitted that respondent no. 3, the Power Grid
Corporation of India Ltd. issued a notice to the petitioner informing
him that the trees mentioned therein were cut and the petitioner will
be compensated for the loss at the value assessed by the Revenue
Department. Thereafter, petitioner was paid a compensation of
Rs.62,100/- by cheque dated 31.3.2003. According to the petitioner,
the said payment was made only against one tree, but inspite of
repeated requests, compensation for other trees have not been paid.
It is also submitted that petitioner does not know in what manner,
respondent no. 3 disposed of the trees in question.
It is unfortunate that inspite of sufficient opportunities given
to the respondents from March, 2004, no counter affidavit has been
filed by them.
No one appears on behalf of respondent no. 3.
State counsel submitted that in absence of counter
affidavit, she is not in a position to accept or controvert the
statements made by the petitioner in the writ petition.
In the circumstances, this Court is left with no option than to
remit the matter to the respondents for doing the needful.
Accordingly, petitioner is given liberty to make a fresh
representation before respondent nos. 2 and 3, who will pass a
reasoned order, and communicate it to the petitioner. If petitioner
is found entitled to receive any further amount as compensation, the
same should be paid to him. If petitioner’s claim/part of it is not found
tenable, the reasons thereof should be communicated to him. This
exercise should be completed, as early as possible and preferably
within two months from the date of receipt of such representation.
It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits
of the claim of the petitioner.
With these observations and directions, this writ petition is
disposed of.
( R.K. Merathia, J).
Rakesh/