High CourtsDivision Bench(2014) 04 JH CK 0032

Mantosh Mahto vs The Indian Iron and Steel Company, The General Manager Chasnala Colliery, Indian Iron and Steel Company and Damodar Valley Corporation

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 29 April 2014

HON’BLE JUDGES
R. Banumathi, C.J · S. Chandrashekhar, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
L.P.A. No. 304 of 2013

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 299 words
1.

The present appeal is filed against the order dated 30.07.2013 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2986 of 2012 dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the writ petition has been preferred after 30 years.

2.

In the writ petition, the writ petitioner sought direction upon the respondents, particularly on 2nd respondent-The General Manager Chasnala Colliery, Indian Iron and Steel Company to provide employment to the appellant in lieu of acquisition of his land measuring 25 decimals situated at Plot Nos. 245, 281, 604, 120 and 121 of Khata No. 23, Mouza Hat Kaudra in the district of Dhanbad.

3.

The above said land of the family of the appellant was acquired in the year 1977-78. Before the acquisition, notice was also issued to Nakul Mahto, the father of the appellant and compensation was also paid to him. The grievance of the appellant is that even though the compensation was paid to the father of the appellant, no employment was provided to the family of the appellant in lieu of the land acquired.

4.

Heard Mr. Sanjay Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. S.K. Ughal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.

5.

Even though the land acquisition was made in the year 1977-78 and the compensation was awarded to the father of the appellants, as pointed out by learned Single Judge, the appellant has approached this Court by filing the writ petition, nearly 30 years after the land was acquired. In the facts and circumstances learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. We do not find any reason warranting interference in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. This Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.