DALGOBIND MANJHI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dtd. 2/9/2013 passed in Land Acquisition Case No.03/2010-11 by the respondent no.3, by which, the claim of the petitioners regarding apportionment of the amount has been rejected with a decision to make payment in favour of respondent no.4 by holding him to be the exclusive title holder of the land discarding the case of the writ petitioners, while according to the writ petitioners, both the writ petitioners and the respondent no.4 are the co-owners of the land in question in the capacity of siblings.

(2.) The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the petition, required to be enumerated which reads as under:- It is the case of the writ petitioners that as per the provision of the National Highway Act, 1956, the Ministry of Road Transport and National Highway, Government of India vide notification dtd. 27/8/2011 published in the daily High Newspaper on 26/9/2011, by which, the land of Bundu, Tamar were acquired for widening of National Highway No.33 and it has also been mentioned that the land details mentioned in the notification dtd. 27/8/2011 are being declared the land of the Central Government. The land of the petitioners and respondent no.4 were acquired under the National Highway Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1956). In pursuant to the acquisition, the respondent no.3 determined the amount payable as compensation under Sec. 3-G of the National Highway Act, 1956 and thereafter, six awards were prepared under Sec. 3-H of the Act, 1956 vide Panchat No.7, 10, 11, 12 and 19 and intimated vide notice dtd. 10/12/2011 for payment. All the aforesaid panchat related with the land of the petitioners were issued only in the name of respondent no.4 with the signature of respondent no.3. When the petitioners came to know that the award of compensation has only been prepared in the name of respondent no.4, then they filed their objection before the respondent authorities.

(3.) Mr. Sameer Saurabh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners by raising the aforesaid legal issue has questioned the jurisdiction of the competent authority i.e., the respondent no.3, who has passed the impugned order dtd. 2/9/2013 and has submitted that the authority has assumed the jurisdiction of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction by deciding the dispute by giving a declaration in favour of respondent no.4 to be the absolute owner of the land in question with a decision for making payment of amount of compensation to be paid in lieu of acquisition of land in question.