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.

Bablu Marandi and anr. Vs. Eastern Railway Division Through Divisional Railway Manager and ors.

Bablu Marandi and anr. vs Eastern Railway Division Through Divisional Railway Manager and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Jharkhand Decided Jun 20, 2007
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/518803

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
Property;Civil
Disposition
Petition dismissed

Case Summary

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

- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Article 215: [M. Karpaga Vinayagam, CJM, .Y.Eqbal & Amareshwar Sahay, R.K. Merathia, Narendra Nath Tiwari, JJ] Contempt Proceedings Review Powers of High Court Held, Article 215 of the Constitution vests the High Court with all the powers of court of record including the power to punish fo...

Key legal issue
Property;Civil
Outcome / disposition
Petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bablu Marandi and anr.

Respondent

Eastern Railway Division Through Divisional Railway Manager and ors.

Legal References

Reported In
[2007(4)JCR330(Jhr)]

Excerpt

.....record including the power to punish for its contempt. this special jurisdiction is inherent in a court of record from the very nature of the court itself. the said special power is not subject to the procedural law either of the criminal procedure code or the contempt of courts act. the high court can deal with the matter summarily and can adopt its own procedure. however, if the high court initiates the proceeding as a court of record, principle of natural justice must be applied and the contemner should be given sufficient opportunity to know the accusation and to defend himself. in the instant case, the contemner was served with the notice to show cause. he was well aware of the accusation. he also admitted his guilt. in view thereof, contention of the contemner lawyer that he was not heard on merit of the contempt application and the impugned judgment of punishing petitioner in contempt of court is violative of principles of natural justice, is not tenable. article 215: contempt proceedings review of conviction held, it is the solemn duty of the bench and bar to maintain and uphold the majesty, authority and dignity of the courts for the sustenance and progress of democracy in our country particularly at the juncture when there are number of instances of outside attempt to disintegrate and destroy the democratic set up of our country. such conduct of a member of the bar brings the authority of the court and the administration of justice into disrespect, erodes and undermine the foundation of the judiciary by shaking faith and confidence of the people in the ability of the courts to deliver free and fair justice, it is a deliberate attempt to insult the high court and denigrate the authority and solemnity and court strongly deprecate such attempt made with biased attitude. such indiscriminate allegations against judges, who are the members of the bench, cannot be a ground for review of the impugned judgment. punishment of prohibiting appearance of..........in which, it was decided that an independent amin would demarcate the acquired portion for-railway by posting poles in presence of railway officer and land owners, whose lands were acquired the meeting was held in presence of shri lobin hembrom, mla, pradhan cum sarpanch of maharajpur panchayat, sdo, rajmahal, assistant engineer, eastern railway, sahibganj and the land owners (annexure-a). thereafter, the acquired lands were demarcated and handed over to the railway by the local authorities/circle officer on 28.7.2002 vide annexure-b, and the work of construction of railway siding started. it is lastly submitted that petitioners have suppressed all these facts and their objection is baseless and mala jide.5. the aforesaid statements made in the counter affidavit have not been controverted. from the facts and circumstances, noticed above, it is clear that the lands were acquired in the year 1971 for railways. compensation was also paid. the acquisition proceeding was complete in 1983, though the railway started construction on the land in question in july 2002. petitioners and other villagers objected. the district administration intervened. the acquired lands were demarcated and handed over to the railway on 28.7.2002 vide annexure-b. petitioner's contention that the lands were acquired temporary for three years cannot be accepted. in the circumstances, i find no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. however, petitioners being adivasis, i am not imposing cost on them for suppressing facts and filing this frivolous writ petition.

Full Judgment

ORDER

R.K. Merathia, J.

1 Heard.

2. Petitioners have prayed for direction to restrain the Railways from constructing railway siding on the raiyati lands in Mauza Moti Jharna, Chak Moti Jhama and Banskela west of Mahajanpur Railway Station, P.S. Taljihari, District Sahibganj and for restraining them from carrying ballasts from the nearby stone quarry and stone crusher machines and for direction to pay adequate compensation to them against their lands occupied by the Railway. Petitioners have further prayed for declaration that the respondents 1 and 2 Railways have no right, title and interest over the lands in question.

3. According to the petitioner, sometimes in the year 1970-71, the Railway acquired about 19 acres of agricultural lands including the lands in question under land acquisition proceeding by way of temporary measure for a period of 3 years for making arrangement for construction of railway line in case the Maharajpur Railway Station gets submerged into the Gangas. It is further stated that after such acquisition, the Railway had constructed railway line on the lands in question but after expiry of three years, they removed the railway line but did not remove the soil piled up across the said railway line in spite of requests due to which petitioners were deprived from using the said lands for last 28 years, for which Railway is liable to pay compensation. Petitioners were shocked and surprised to find on 8th July, 2002 that some activities were in progress for constructing railway siding on the lands in question and for carrying ballasts etc. from the nearby stone quarries. The complaints were also made to the local authority.

4. The stand of the Railway on the other hand inter alia is that the lands were acquired in the year 1971 and the award was published. The Land Acquisition Officer, Dumka vide letter No. Ill dated 21,2.1983, declared that all formalities for acquisition of the land had been completed and the possession of the land was taken over permanently, It is further stated that the compensation was also paid. However, only in July, 2002, the construction work of railway siding could be started on the acquired lands. The villagers raised objection. The Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj held a meeting on 22.7.2002, in which, it was decided that an independent amin would demarcate the acquired portion for-Railway by posting poles in presence of Railway Officer and land owners, whose lands were acquired The meeting was held in presence of Shri Lobin Hembrom, MLA, pradhan cum sarpanch of Maharajpur Panchayat, SDO, Rajmahal, Assistant Engineer, Eastern Railway, Sahibganj and the land owners (Annexure-A). Thereafter, the acquired lands were demarcated and handed over to the Railway by the local Authorities/Circle Officer on 28.7.2002 vide Annexure-B, and the work of construction of railway siding started. It is lastly submitted that petitioners have suppressed all these facts and their objection is baseless and mala jide.

5. The aforesaid statements made in the counter affidavit have not been controverted. From the facts and circumstances, noticed above, it is clear that the lands were acquired in the year 1971 for Railways. Compensation was also paid. The acquisition proceeding was complete in 1983, though the railway started construction on the land in question in July 2002. Petitioners and other villagers objected. The District Administration intervened. The acquired lands were demarcated and handed over to the Railway on 28.7.2002 vide Annexure-B. Petitioner's contention that the lands were acquired temporary for three years cannot be accepted. In the circumstances, I find no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. However, petitioners being adivasis, I am not imposing cost on them for suppressing facts and filing this frivolous writ petition.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial