Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR
Naresh Sao, son of Late Chander Sao – Appellant
Versus
Central Coalfields Ltd., a subsidiary of Coal India Limited, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent-authorities to pay compensation and to provide employment to the petitioner in lieu of acquisition of his land appertaining to Khata No.8, Mouza-Urimari, Thana No.155, District-Hazaribag, Jharkhand, measuring an area of 23.66 acres (hereinafter to be referred as the “said land”) which was acquired vide Notification Nos. S.O.51(E) dated 24th January, 1975 and S.O. 4609 dated 7th December, 1983 issued by the Ministry of Energy (Department of Coal), Government of India, New Delhi.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the original raiyat of the said land had failed to pay the rent for which a certificate proceeding being Certificate Case No.1143 of 1932-33 was initiated against him. Subsequently, the decree was prepared in the said case and the said land was purchased by ancestors of the petitioner through auction sale. Thereafter they were put into possession of the said land and became owner of the same. Further, a title dispute over the said land got started between ancestors of the petitioner and the original raiyat which led to filing a suit by the a
The High Court may refuse relief due to delay and laches, particularly when third-party rights have accrued, prioritizing timely claims and the integrity of past compensations.
Claims for employment under rehabilitation schemes must be pursued timely; belated claims violate constitutional provisions and are liable to dismissal.
It is well-settled that under Article 226, power of High Court to issue an appropriate writ is discretionary.
The judgment emphasizes that lapsing provision under Section 11A does not apply to acquisitions made by Nagpur Improvement Trust under NIT Act, while also highlighting entitlement to compensation for....
Compulsory acquisition of land – If any individual is to be divested or deprived of said right by State, it ought not be done without giving compensation in accordance with law for land so acquired f....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the right to compensation for expropriation of property is guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, and delay in seeking....
(1) State cannot shield itself behind ground of delay and laches in such a situation – There cannot be a limitation to doing justice.(2) Acquisition of land – Nobody can be deprived of liberty or pro....
The court held that delay does not negate the right to compensation for property unlawfully appropriated by the State, emphasizing the need for due process and just compensation under established law....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
