High Court Jharkhand High Court

Pati Mahato vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 4 February, 2011

Jharkhand High Court
Pati Mahato vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 4 February, 2011
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                W. P. (C) No. 6420 of 2010
                            ---

           Pati Mahato                                  ...      ...    Petitioner
                                     Versus
           1. The State of Jharkhand
           2. The Additional Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation,
              Subarnarekha Project Bhawan, Seraikella-Kharsawan
           3. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, Subarnarekha
              Project Bhawan, Seraikella-Kharsawan
           4. The Rehabilitation Officer, Subarnarekha Project,
              Seraikella-Kharsawan
           5. To the Deputy Commissioner,
              Seraikella-Kharsawan                      ...    ...      Respondents
                              ---


           CORAM        : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. K. MERATHIA
                              ---
           For the Petitioner     : Mr. Jagannath Mahato, Advocate
           For the Respondents    : J. C. to S. C. (Mines)

                               ---

2. 04.02.2011

: Mr. Jagannath Mahato, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that the compensation of the acquired house was
to be paid to the petitioner, but by mistake it has been paid to his co-
sharer Late Fula Mahtani.

State counsel submitted that in the absence of counter
affidavit, he is not in a position to accept or controvert the submission
made in the writ petition. However, he submitted that the matter will be
looked into.

In the circumstances, petitioner is permitted to make a
fresh representation before respondent no. 3 – The Spl. Land
Acquisition Officer, Subarnarekha Project Bhawan, Seraikella-
Kharsawan. If he satisfies that the petitioner was entitled to the
compensation against house, but it has been wrongly paid to other
person, he will pass necessary orders directing them to deposit such
amount, so that, the same can be paid to the petitioner. If however, he
find that the amount has been rightly paid to other person, he will
communicate the reasons thereof to the petitioner. This exercise
should be completed as early as possible and preferably within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of such representation.

-2-

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits
of the case of the petitioner.

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

(R. K. Merathia, J.)

R. Shekhar Cp 2