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.

Meena Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors

Meena Devi vs State of Jharkhand and ors

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Jan 10, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/971866

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
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Meena Devi

Respondent

State of Jharkhand and ors

Excerpt

.....the petitioner :mr.subodh kr. jha, pranav kr.jha,advocates for the respondents : s.c. (mines) ----- 07/10.01.2013 the petitioner by way of present writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india , has prayed for issuance of writ/order for quashing and setting aside final order dated 11.07.2010 passed by the deputy commissioner, hazaribagh in record case no.15 of 2010-11, rejecting the claim of the petitioner as raiyat of khata no.63, plot no.01 measuring an area 24 decimal, mauza-demo tand, thana no.245 within the district of hazaribagh. it is further prayed that necessary direction may be issued upon the respondent to pay proper and adequate compensation for the part of claim, which is required for the purpose of widening of n.h.33. heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent. the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the deputy commissioner, hazaribagh has not properly considered the claim of the present petitioner while passing the impugned order. learned counsel appearing for the respondent-state has submitted that the petitioner had not produced the relevant documents in support of his claim before the deputy commissioner, hazaribagh. it appears that the petitioner has produced the necessary document along with present petition to justify his claim, which includes the document relating to sale , mutation and showing the possession of the land in question. since, documents were not produced before the deputy commissioner, hazaribagh, this court is of the view that the impugned order is required to be set aside and the petitioner is required to be directed to submit all these documents, which are annexed with the petition, before the deputy commissioner, hazaribagh within a period of three weeks from -2- the date of this order. on the receipt of these documents, the deputy commissioner, hazaribagh shall pass appropriate order after affording an opportunity of hearing, if required, to the petitioner and.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 1457 of 2011 Meena Devi ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others . Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE P. P. BHATT For the Petitioner :Mr.Subodh Kr. Jha, Pranav Kr.Jha,Advocates For the Respondents : S.C. (Mines) ----- 07/10.01.2013 The petitioner by way of present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , has prayed for issuance of writ/order for quashing and setting aside final order dated 11.07.2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh in Record Case No.15 of 2010-11, rejecting the claim of the petitioner as raiyat of Khata No.63, Plot No.01 measuring an area 24 decimal, Mauza-Demo Tand, Thana No.245 within the district of Hazaribagh. It is further prayed that necessary direction may be issued upon the respondent to pay proper and adequate compensation for the part of claim, which is required for the purpose of widening of N.H.33. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh has not properly considered the claim of the present petitioner while passing the impugned order. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State has submitted that the petitioner had not produced the relevant documents in support of his claim before the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh. It appears that the petitioner has produced the necessary document along with present petition to justify his claim, which includes the document relating to sale , mutation and showing the possession of the land in question. Since, documents were not produced before the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is required to be set aside and the petitioner is required to be directed to submit all these documents, which are annexed with the petition, before the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh within a period of three weeks from -2- the date of this order. On the receipt of these documents, the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh shall pass appropriate order after affording an opportunity of hearing, if required, to the petitioner and shall decide the claim of the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the documents. If the claim is found genuine, the compensation should be paid to the petitioner, in accordance with law. With aforesaid observation, this writ petition stands disposed of. (P.P.Bhatt, J.) shanant/saket

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial