Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Birendra Narayan and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.

Birendra Narayan and anr. vs State of Jharkhand and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Jan 11, 2007
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/515926

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Jharkhand High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A.No.59/1988] Section 166; [A.K. Patnaik, CJ, A.K. Gohil & S. Samvatsar, JJ] Application for compensation for personal injury Death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons Held, Claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. Claim will not survive to ...

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Birendra Narayan and anr.

Respondent

State of Jharkhand and ors.

Legal References

Reported In
[2007(2)JCR76(Jhr)]

Excerpt

- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant.orderr.k. merathia, j.1. as prayed mr. rajiv sharma is permitted to delete the name of respondent no. 5.2. the petitioners have jointly filed this writ petition challenging the cancellation of their settlements with regard to two ponds for the period 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2006. the petitioners' case is that on 15.7.2004 the said settlement was cancelled without any opportunity to show cause. it is further submitted that the petitioners have suffered huge loss due to such arbitrary action of the respondents.3. learned counsel for the state submitted that after settlement was made, a representation was received from the respondent nos 6 and 7, who belong to scheduled tribe community, for settling the said ponds in their favour and on such representation a committee took a decision to settle the same with respondent nos. 6 and 7 after cancelling the settlement made in favour of the petitioners. accordingly, the settlements were cancelled and the said ponds were settled in favour of respondent nos. 5 and 6, till 31.3.2007.4. admittedly the settlement was made in favour of the petitioners. before cancelling the same they were not given any opportunity to show cause. in the circumstances, it has to be held that the said action of cancellation of settlements made in favour of the petitioners was arbitrary.5. however, as the period of said settlement expired on 31.3.2006, the only order which can be passed in this writ petition now is, for compensating the petitioners.6. in the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to put an end to this litigation, i direct the respondents that the deposits made by the petitioners against the settlement should be returned to them along with a lump sum compensation of rs. 15,000/- each within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.with these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.

Full Judgment

ORDER

R.K. Merathia, J.

1. As prayed Mr. Rajiv Sharma is permitted to delete the name of respondent No. 5.

2. The petitioners have jointly filed this writ petition challenging the cancellation of their settlements with regard to two ponds for the period 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2006. The petitioners' case is that on 15.7.2004 the said settlement was cancelled without any opportunity to show cause. It is further submitted that the petitioners have suffered huge loss due to such arbitrary action of the respondents.

3. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that after settlement was made, a representation was received from the respondent Nos 6 and 7, who belong to Scheduled Tribe Community, for settling the said ponds in their favour and on such representation a committee took a decision to settle the same with respondent Nos. 6 and 7 after cancelling the settlement made in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, the settlements were cancelled and the said ponds were settled in favour of respondent Nos. 5 and 6, till 31.3.2007.

4. Admittedly the settlement was made in favour of the petitioners. Before cancelling the same they were not given any opportunity to show cause. In the circumstances, it has to be held that the said action of cancellation of settlements made in favour of the petitioners was arbitrary.

5. However, as the period of said settlement expired on 31.3.2006, the only order which can be passed in this writ petition now is, for compensating the petitioners.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to put an end to this litigation, I direct the respondents that the deposits made by the petitioners against the settlement should be returned to them along with a lump sum compensation of Rs. 15,000/- each within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial