Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1199 (JHR)

Golok Bihari Dey v. State of Jharkhand

2019-06-24

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2019
ORDER : 1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder following two prayers have been made:- “(1)(A) To construct the main Road under National Highway from Poraiyahat to Godda in place of Hansdiha to Godda, so that large number of plants and houses can be protected. (B) To acquire the land property according to Land Acquisition Act from Murcy Hospital Poraiyahat to Suraj Mandal College, Poraihat.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the competent authority is acquiring the land in order to construct the main road under National Highway from Poraiyahat to Godda in place of Hansdiha to Godda and therefore, the land is to be acquired for constructing the National Highway from Hansdiha to Godda by following the procedure as laid down under the Land Acquisition Act. 3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that to that effect, a representation has been filed, however, of no effect, therefore, the instant writ petition has been filed. 4. Mr. 3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that to that effect, a representation has been filed, however, of no effect, therefore, the instant writ petition has been filed. 4. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned GA-IV appearing for the State of Jharkhand has objected to the prayer, ground and relief sought for in this writ petition by submitting that the petitioner cannot dictate the terms of acquisition since the Land Acquisition Act provides the provision of acquisition depending upon the policy of the competent authority for acquisition of land for a particular purpose, herein, since the purpose is for construction of National Highway from Poraiyahat to Godda, therefore, a proceeding has been initiated under the applicable Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of land from Poraiyahat to Godda but the petitioner is making objection not to construct the highway from Poraiyahat to Godda rather to construct it from Hansdiha to Godda for which the land from Murcy Hospital Poraiyahat to Godda needs to be acquired by following the procedure laid down under the Land Acquisition Act, the same is not worth to be considered in view of the fact that the petitioner under the Land Acquisition Act, is only entitled to get compensation if the acquisition is in pursuance to the provision applicable as per law but from the pleadings made in the writ petition, it is nowhere apparent that the procedure has not been followed in connection with the acquisition of the aforesaid land and therefore, the petitioner cannot raise the grievance that the provision of Land Acquisition Act has not been followed, save and except, that his grievance pertaining to adequate compensation is required to be considered for which the petitioner needs to approach before the competent authority, therefore, the submission has been made that the writ petition may be dismissed. 5. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking to the pleadings made in the writ petition, it is evident therefrom that the petitioner is questioning the decision taken by the authority in acquisition of land for constructing the National Highway from Poraiyahat to Godda and in its place the land is suggested to be acquired from Murcy Hospital Poraiyahat to Suraj Mandal College, Poraihat. 6. 6. It is not in dispute that the Land Acquisition Act provides procedure for acquisition of land i.e., proceeding initiated from issuance of the notification up to objection from the concerned, and therefore, adjudication regarding claim of the compensation. 7. So far as the prayer made in this writ petition is concerned, the petitioner cannot dictate the terms of the acquisition that too for construction of the National Highway as because the construction of National Highway depends upon a project depending upon the views of the expert body in order to maintain alignment of the highway to prevent accidents over the highway. 8.The petitioner's prayer is that the land from Poraiyahat to Godda may not be acquired because his land is situated over there rather from Murcy Hospital Poraiyahat to Suraj Mandal College, Poraihat be acquired. This such prayer is not worth to be considered by this court prevailing upon the views of the expert body of the National Highway who have formulated a project for the construction of the national highway for the said area. 9. It is not evident from the pleadings made in the writ petition that whether any procedure as laid down under the applicable Land Acquisition Act has not been followed, therefore, the prayer which has been made for following the procedure of Land Acquisition Act is not supported by the pleadings and hence, the pleadings of the writ petition is vague and it is settled position of law that on vague and bald statements, no relief can be granted by the writ Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. In view thereof, this Court is not inclined to grant relief sought for by the petitioner, accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. 11. However, it will be open for the petitioner to make appropriate application if there is any grievance pertaining to compensation which will be considered by the concerned competent authority in accordance with law. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Writ Petition disposed of.