Posted On by &filed under High Court, Jharkhand High Court.


Jharkhand High Court
Mangal Mahato & Ors vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 22 March, 2011
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           W.P.(C) No. 1128 of 2009
          1.        Mangal Mahato.
          2.        Bigne Mahato @ Bigneshwar Mahato.
          3.        Kamla Mahatain                           .....Petitioners
                                       Versus
          1.        The State of Jharkhand.
          2.        Additional Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation,
                    Swarnrekha Project, Swarn Rekha Bhawan, P.O. P.S. Adityapur,
                    District-Saraikella-Kharsawan.
          3.        Special Land Acquisition Officer cum Rehabilitation Officer,
                    Swaranrekha Project, Swaranrekha Bhawan, District-Saraikella,
                    Kharsawan.                                     ......Respondents

           Coram: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. MERATHIA
                                  ---------
           For the Petitioners    : Mr. R.C.P. Sah, Advocate
           For the Respondents : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate
                                  --------
03/22.03.2011

Mr. R.C.P. Sah, learned counsel for the petitioners,
submitted that petitioners have not been paid compensation with
interest for the house of petitioner nos. 1 and 3 and compensation for
the house and Parti Land of petitioner no. 2, though the lands in
question were acquired in 1984. He further submitted that several
representations were also made in this regard but the claims were
allowed in part.

Mr. Srijit Choudhary, appearing for the State, submitted
that in absence of counter affidavit, he is not in a position to say
whether petitioners’ claim is genuine or not.

In the circumstances, petitioners are directed to make a
fresh representation before respondent nos. 2 and 3 within three
weeks. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 will look into the matter. If
petitioners’ claim is found genuine and legally tenable, necessary
orders will be passed in that regard. If it is found that the claim of the
petitioners/part of it is not genuine/legally tenable, the reasons
thereof should be communicated to them. This exercise should be
completed within three months from the date of receipt of such
representation.

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the
merits of the claims of the petitioners.

With these observations and directions, this writ petition
is disposed of.

( R.K. Merathia, J)
Rakesh/


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

8 queries in 0.166 seconds.