Md. Mustakim Mian vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the petitioner being aggrieved with the order passed by the

respondents whereby and whereunder the part of the amount of compensation has been disbursed in favour of the respondent No.6 and as such doing

so the respondents have committed illegality, therefore, the instant writ petition.

Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand as also Mrs. Sweety Topno, learned counsel appearing for the National

Highway Authority of India, has jointly submitted that the remedies are available to the petitioner in view of the provision of Section 3 (h) (4) of the

National Highway Act, 1956, therefore, it would be appropriate just and proper to give liberty to the petitioner to approach before the competent

authority to decide the issue.

Upon this, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the appropriate order may be passed.

Upon such submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the nature of dispute as also considering the availability of remedy

available under the provision of Section 3 (h) (4) of the Act, 1956 would be just and proper to dispose of the writ petition without entering into the

merit of the claim of the petitioner, to make appropriate application before the respondent No.3 for its consideration.

In view thereof, this writ petition is accordingly, disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner to make appropriate application before the respondent No.3

District Land Acquisition Officer-Cum-Competent Authority, N.H.-02, Hazaribag within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of

this order along with supported documents, if any.

The concerned respondent shall adjudicate the dispute by hearing the petitioner as also the respondent No.6.