Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 786 (JHR)

Kalyan Kumar Srivastava, v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-04-06

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

body2018
JUDGMENT Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. – Heard Mrs. Ritu Kumar, counsel assisted by Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, counsel appearing for the petitioners. 2. Heard Mr. Atanu Banerjee, G.A. appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 5. 3. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondent no.6. 4. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: "For a direction upon the respondents to pay adequate compensation at the market rate to the petitioners alongwith interest @18% from the date of its illegal use till the actual payment and to provide employment to the petitioners or their heirs in lieu of their land on which ''Jawahar Navodaya School, Latehar'' has been constructed without acquiring the same in accordance with law. And for any other relief to which the petitioners may be found entitled to." 5. The petitioners are claiming the property by virtue of the registered sale-deeds dated 02.04.1974, as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 6. Counsel for the petitioners submits that this property has never been acquired by the respondents and the respondents have constructed a school on this property. 7. Counsel for the petitioners refers to Annexure-7 to the writ petition containing order dated 10.07.1998 passed in Miscellaneous Case No.4 of 1998-1999 wherein the problem/grievance of the petitioners was taken note of by the Circle Officer, Latehar and it was observed that equivalent land may be given to the petitioners. 8. Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 5, Mr. Atanu Banerjee, G.A. submits that he has received instructions and it has also been mentioned in the counter-affidavit that the Navodaya Vidyalaya i.e. the school has been constructed on a different plot and not on the property of the petitioners as alleged. However, he submits that it can certainly be verified as to what is the exact location of the building in which the school is running. 9. However, he submits that it can certainly be verified as to what is the exact location of the building in which the school is running. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and considering the dispute, the exact location of the building of school run by the respondent no.6 is to be verified, the petitioners are directed to appear before the Circle Officer, Latehar on 14.05.2018 and the Circle Officer, Latehar, with the help of the Amin, may find out the exact location of the school building of respondent no.6 in presence of the petitioners and if the building is found to be on the property of the petitioners then it will be open to the parties herein to take appropriate steps either in terms of the order dated 10.07.1998, as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition, or in any other manner as may be permissible in law. 10. The Circle Officer, Latehar may do the inspection, prepare a report with the help of the Amin and serve a copy of the report to the petitioners within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.