Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1100 (JHR)

Govind Yadav v. Central Coalfields Limited

2008-09-10

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2008
Order Petitioner in this application has prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondents to pay compensation to the damage caused to the petitioner's house on account of blasting operation conducted in quarry no. 2 of Kathara Colliery of the Central Coalfields Limited within the vicinity of the house of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel submits that the fact that damage to the petitioner's house was caused has been confirmed on an inspection by a team constituted by the respondent authorities. The enquiry report submitted by the inspecting team is contained in Annexure-R/2 to the rejoinder to the counter affidavit, which makes it clear that on inspection, it was found that the damage was in the nature of cracks in the house of the petitioner and the inspecting team also confirmed that the damage could possibly be on account of the blasting operation. 3. Learned counsel explains further that the house of Lakhsman Gope was also damaged on account of blasting and the respondents had paid compensation to him. In the case of the petitioner, though an assurance was given to the petitioner for payment of compensation by the respondents for the loss and the damage suffered by the petitioner, but till final decision in the matter, the petitioner was allowed to live in the quarters. Furthermore, the allotment of quarters has been cancelled and it has been allotted to some other person rendering the petitioner homeless and that too without payment of compensation. Several representations of the petitioner have been of no effect. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents denying and disputing the claim of the petitioner. The stand taken by the respondents is that though to their knowledge, the damage was on account of blasting operation. 5. In para 11 of the writ petition, the petitioner has categorically stated that the team constituted by the respondents conducted visual inspection of the petitioner's house and found damage in the petitioner's house which was by way of vibrations of the blasting operation. A copy of the report of the inspecting team has been annexed by the petitioner to the rejoinder to the counter of the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the contention of the petitioner needs to be verified. 7. It is not disputed that the inspection report (Annexure-R/2) has been issued by the representatives of the respondent authorities. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the contention of the petitioner needs to be verified. 7. It is not disputed that the inspection report (Annexure-R/2) has been issued by the representatives of the respondent authorities. It is apparent from the inspection report that the petitioner's house has suffered damage on account of blasting conducted by the respondents. 8. The petitioner in this application has also adverted to the case of Laxman Gope whose house was also damaged on account of the blasting operation. The contention of the petitioner which is supported by the letter (Anneuxre-R/1) issued by the respondents is that the said Lakshman Gope was given monetary compensation, for the damages caused to his house. 9. Prima facie, there is ample material to suggest that the petitioner has a genuine grievance and is entitled to claim damages from the respondents on account of the breach in the structures of his house. 10. In the circumstances, the respondents are directed to assess the extent of monetary compensation payable to the petitioner after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing in the matter of assessment and the respondents shall communicate their decision to the petitioner effectively within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The amount of compensation payable shall be paid to the petitioner within one month of the assessment made, alongwith interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum till the date of final payment. 11. Till final decision in the matter, the petitioner shall be allowed to continue in the quarters allotted to him as an alternative arrangement. 12. With the above observations, this application is disposed of. 13. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the respondents.