Hari Narayan Mishra Vs. Central Coal Fields Ltd. and ors.

Hari Narayan Mishra vs Central Coal Fields Ltd. and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Jun 09, 2008

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/519262

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/519262
Court: Jharkhand High Court
Judge: Amareshwar Sahay, J.
Decided On: Jun 09, 2008
Subject: Property

Case Summary

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

- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. Articles 12 & 226: [M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J., Narendra Nath Tiwari & D.P.Singh, JJ] Writ petition - Maintainability - Whether State Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd., is a State within meaning of Article 12 ? - Held, From perusal of relevant Rules of byelaws, it is clear that St...

Key legal issue: Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Hari Narayan Mishra

Respondent

Central Coal Fields Ltd. and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: [2008(3)JCR304(Jhr)]

Excerpt

- constitution of india. articles 12 & 226: [m. karpaga vinayagam, c.j., narendra nath tiwari & d.p.singh, jj] writ petition - maintainability - whether state co-operative milk producers federation ltd., is a state within meaning of article 12 ? - held, from perusal of relevant rules of byelaws, it is clear that state government has no role to play either in policy decision for raising funds for federation or its expenditure and thus have no financial control. further there is nothing to indicate that government has any functional and administrative control over federation. state government has no role to play in matter of appointment of any of officials of federation including managing director. federation is totally independent in all respects and in no way subservient to state government in conduct of its business. federation in no way can be termed as agency of state government and does not come within meaning of article 12 of constitution. writ petitions against federation is not maintainable. - 23. 6. from perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the general manager asked the petitioner to submit certain documents such as translated copy of the sale-deed by which the petitioner had acquired the lands in question as well as some other documents but the petitioner did not submit those documents. it has also been held in the impugned order that the petitioner failed to establish his title and possession over the plot no. it also appears that he has not been able to consider the documents of title and possession of the petitioner since the petitioner failed to produce the same therefore, in my view, the findings arrived at by the general manager are not based on any documents/evidence......title and possession over the plot no. 23 for which he was claiming compensation.7. on a careful scrutiny of the impugned order. i find that it is not clear form the impugned order as to what was the basis of the findings that plot no. 23 was, in fact, a river. it is not clear as to whether the general manager himself perused any survey khatiyan? it also appears that he has not been able to consider the documents of title and possession of the petitioner since the petitioner failed to produce the same therefore, in my view, the findings arrived at by the general manager are not based on any documents/evidence. the impugned order has not been passed by the general manager as per the order/directions passed by this court in the earlier writ petition.8. in view of the above discussions and findings, in my view, the impugned order dated 18.8.2005. contained in annexure 14, passed by the general manager, cannot be sustained and, therefore, the same is hereby set aside and the matter is being remitted back to the general manager, central coalfields limited. dhori area, bokaro (respondent no. 4) for a fresh considerations and for passing a fresh order in accordance with law. the petitioner is hereby directed to submit all the documents relating to his title and possession, which have been annexed with this writ petition including the typed/translated copy of the registered sale deed to the general manger, within three weeks. thereafter, the general manager shall consider those documents in its right perspective and shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law keeping in mind the order passed by this court in, the earlier writ petition, contained in annexure-8 to the writ petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of submission of the documents. it is also made clear that if the presence, of the petitioner is required by the general manager for any clarification or for any explanation, the petitioner shall make himself available before the general.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Amareshwar Sahay, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. In view of the nature of dispute and claim made in this writ application, it is being disposed of at this stage itself with the consent of the parties.

3. The petitioner has moved this Court earlier in W.P. (C) No. 1905 of 2005 seeking direction upon the respondents for payment of compensation for the lands acquired under the provisions of Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 on the ground that the land belonging to the petitioner was acquired by the respondents C.C.L. and they were using the same but the compensation was not paid to him.

4. This Court by order dated 28.4.2005 disposed of the said Writ Petition by, giving liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the respondent No. 4 the General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Dhori Area, Bokaro along with all the documents of title and possession and other certificates and the General Manager was directed to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order within three months from the date of filing of such representation by the petitioner.

5. The grievance of the petitioner is that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, though he filed a representation before the General Manager stating in detail about his claim along with supporting documents but the General Manager by the impugned order dated 18.8.2005 contained in Annexure 14 to the Writ Application has illegally rejected to claim for compensation of the petitioner by wrongly going into the question of his title and possession on plot No. 23.

6. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the General Manager asked the petitioner to submit certain documents such as translated copy of the sale-deed by which the petitioner had acquired the lands in question as well as some other documents but the petitioner did not submit those documents. From the impugned order it also appears that the General Manager has found that according to entries in the Survey Khatiyan Plot No. 23 has been recorded as River and, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim compensation for the same. It has also been held in the impugned order that the petitioner failed to establish his title and possession over the Plot No. 23 for which he was claiming compensation.

7. On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order. I find that it is not clear form the impugned order as to what was the basis of the findings that Plot No. 23 was, in fact, a river. It is not clear as to whether the General Manager himself perused any Survey Khatiyan? It also appears that he has not been able to consider the documents of title and possession of the petitioner since the petitioner failed to produce the same therefore, in my view, the findings arrived at by the General Manager are not based on any documents/evidence. The impugned order has not been passed by the General Manager as per the order/directions passed by this Court in the earlier Writ Petition.

8. In view of the above discussions and findings, in my view, the impugned order dated 18.8.2005. contained in Annexure 14, passed by the General Manager, cannot be sustained and, therefore, the same is hereby set aside and the matter is being remitted back to the General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited. Dhori Area, Bokaro (respondent No. 4) for a fresh considerations and for passing a fresh order in accordance with law. The petitioner is hereby directed to submit all the documents relating to his title and possession, which have been annexed with this writ petition including the typed/translated copy of the registered Sale Deed to the General Manger, within three weeks. Thereafter, the General Manager shall consider those documents in its right perspective and shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law keeping in mind the order passed by this Court in, the earlier Writ Petition, contained in Annexure-8 to the Writ Petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of submission of the documents. It is also made clear that if the presence, of the petitioner is required by the General Manager for any clarification or for any explanation, the petitioner shall make himself available before the General Manager as and when required.

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

Same Court & Year Jharkhand · 2008 Same Parties Hari Narayan Mishra vs Central Coal Fields Ltd. and ors. Same Subject Property Same Judge Amareshwar Sahay, J.

Property