Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 221 (JHR)

Ramswaroop Sahu v. State of Jharkhand

2013-02-12

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has sought direction upon the respondent nos. 2 and 3 not to proceed further in construction and widening of NH 33 in respect of land having Khata No. 31 Plot No. 1112 thana no. 61 village Ormanjhi, which is said to be belonging to the petitioner. 3. From the facts, which have been stated on behalf of the petitioner, it appears that the acquisition process was started in the year 2010 for widening NH-33 by issuing publication of notification and thereafter vide Annexure-1 dated 13.09.2010, notices have been issued in compliance of Section 3(H) of the National Highway Act, 1956 in the name of the persons, who have been found to be the claimants. It is submitted that petitioner, however, subsequently came to know about the acquisition when the respondents approached to remove the petitioner's premises from the land in question. Thereafter, he filed an objection before the competent authority i.e. Land Acquisition Officer, Ormanjhi, Ranchi vide his representation dated 16.05.2012. 4. Learned counsel for the State, however, submits that the prescribed procedure is laid down under the Provisions of NH Act, 1956 under Section 3(H) whereunder after meeting with the objection, it would take possession of the land and the amount determined under Section 3G of the Act is to be deposited by the Central Government as laid down under the Rules. Where several persons claim to be interested in the amount deposited, the competent authority shall determine the persons to whom the amount is payable. In case of any dispute as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof, on objection by the concerned persons, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated. 5. From the submission of the parties and after going through the relevant provisions of the NH Act, it is apparent that the award has been made in favour of certain persons under the relevant provisions of the Act of 1956 on 13.09.2010 itself. The petitioner, claiming himself as land owner and affected by the said acquisition, has now made objection in May, 2012 before the Land Acquisition Officer concerned. 6. The petitioner, claiming himself as land owner and affected by the said acquisition, has now made objection in May, 2012 before the Land Acquisition Officer concerned. 6. In any case, it, however, does not appear that the petitioner made objection for the same at the time of acquisition of land in question, if, at all, he had any claim as to the ownership of the said land. In the circumstances, this Court refrains from interfering in the present writ petition. 7. However, it would be open to the petitioner to pursue his remedy before the Land Acquisition Officer, respondent no. 3, who shall consider the same in accordance with law and provisions of the N.H. Act, 1956. If it is found that his objection is tenable and within time as per the provisions of the Act, it would be open to the Competent Authority to make a reference before the concerned Principal Civil Court having jurisdiction to decide the rival contention of the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of.