Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 434 (JHR)

Mohammed Shakil v. The State of Jharkhand

2011-05-12

Bhagwati Prasad, PRAKASH TATIA

body2011
Order Heard counsel for the parties. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9.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.