KAILASH YADAV Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER
LAWS(JHAR)-2016-11-131
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on November 09,2016

KAILASH YADAV Appellant
VERSUS
Bharat Coking Coal Limited Through Its General Manager Respondents

JUDGEMENT

APARESH KUMAR SINGH,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) Petitioners seek direction upon the respondent authorities of B.C.C.L to pay compensation for the land measuring an area of 1 acre 96 decimals, appertaining to different Khatas and Plots alleged to have been acquired by the State in Case no. 30/8283 vide Notification nos. 55/834397, published on 16th November, 1984 in the District Gazette, Dhanbad. Petitioners claim ownership of the piece of land appertaining to Khata no. 8, Plot nos. 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 37, 38 and 49, measuring an area of 1 acre 25 decimals and Plot no. 113116 of the same Khata having an area 71 decimals, said to have been acquired for the purpose of coal company by the notification dated 16th November, 1983. Petitioners have enclosed Annexure 2, communication dated 5th February, 2008 of Chief Manager, Kusunda Area addressed to the President of Bihar Janta Khan Mazdoor Sangh in relation to the application for employment in lieu of acquisition made for certain pieces of land claimed by the petitioner as their own. That letter indicates that both employment and compensation have already been given. Petitioners have enclosed Annexure 3 as a representation made to Chief General Manager, Koyla Nagar, B.C.C.L detailing genealogy of these petitioners for making out a case for compensation. It is dated 7th December, 2010. Annexure 4 is another document, which is an order passed by the authority under C.N.T Act, where under petitioners contend that their ownership over certain pieces of land in Thana no. 58, District Dhanbad, Khata no. 7/13, Khesra no. 32/81 have been reaffirmed in opposition to that of claimant B.C.C.L.
(3.) These plots referred to in Annexure 4, however, do not correspond to plot numbers claimed by the petitioners as their own in the averments made in the writ petition. No document of their title or ownership has been enclosed to the writ petition nor is the acquisition notification in place. Petitioners have made a representation for compensation in the year 2010 after almost 28 years of the acquisition and thereafter moved this Court in the year 2011.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.