Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1080 (JHR)

Laso Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand

2016-07-19

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2016
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. These two petitioners contend that the lands have been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of Subarnrekha Multi Purpose Project pursuant to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 dated 1.10.1985. As per the statements made at paragraph-13, lands and house of the petitioner no.1 falling under Plot Nos.1902, 1903 and 1904 under Khata No.53 of village Ruiani measuring about 0.39 acres was acquired vide Award no.186 prepared in the name of this petitioner and others and compensation amount of Rs.8,257/- and odd was paid on 6th June, 1986. Similar house of this petitioner standing on Plot No.1630 under Khata No.69 of the same village was acquired under Award no.317 prepared in the name of this petitioner and another, both sons of late Joginder Manjhi and compensation amount of Rs.5,829/- and odd was paid to them on 8th June, 1986. Another house standing on Plot no.1630 under Khata No.69 of the same village was also acquired under Award No.71 prepared in the name of this petitioner and his brother and compensation was also paid to the tune of Rs.2,263.58 paise. Petitioner no.2 asserts at paragraph-18 that he along with Lal Manjhi, Chhotu Manjhi, Gokul Manjhi, all sons of Gora Manjhi received the compensation amount pursuant to Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. Notices issued upon them under the Act of 1894 (Annexure-5 series). 3. These two petitioners now seek issuance of Vikas Pustika for their resettlement and rehabilitation under the Rehabilitation Policy, 2012 of the Water Resources Department (Annexure-1) dated 01.11.2012 claiming themselves to be in the category of displaced person. They have also approached the respondent authorities vide Annexure-4 and 7 for issuance of Vikas Pustika. Thereafter, they have approached this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that instructions have not been furnished in the matter as it was not taken up earlier. Matter appears to have been filed in September 2014. However, learned counsel for the State submits that petitioners' representation may be considered in accordance with law by the competent authority after due scrutiny of relevant facts relating to their claim. 5. Matter appears to have been filed in September 2014. However, learned counsel for the State submits that petitioners' representation may be considered in accordance with law by the competent authority after due scrutiny of relevant facts relating to their claim. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and submissions made, at this stage, without making any comments on the merits of the case of the petitioners, writ petition is being disposed of, so that petitioners may pursue their representation before the competent authority/Respondent No. 4 Rehabilitation Officer No. II, Subarnrekha Multi Purpose Project in respect of the aforesaid grievances. The competent authority/Respondent No. 4 would consider such application in accordance with law within a reasonable time, preferably twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Petition disposed of.