0

Writ petition disposed of because of less evidence and direction were issued to complete the pending inquiry in the matter – Jharkhand high court 

Writ petition disposed of because of less evidence and direction were issued to complete the pending inquiry in the matter – Jharkhand high court 

A writ petition was filed seeking the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.5,16,880/- that is the amount of acquisition of land belonging to the petitioner. the petition in the matter was heard and disposed of by a single judge bench of HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN in the matter of Shri R.K. Dinesh versus the state of Manipur and Ors(W.P.(C) No.1120 of 2018)

The petitioner was filed on the ground that petitioner is the owner of 1.92 acres of land and out of his land 0.78 acres was acquired by authorities to make a canal and A sum of Rs.5,16,880/- was sanctioned by the Collector, Land Acquisition for acquiring the petitioner land and the petitioner was out of the station at that time and the money issued by cheque in the name of the petitioner was withdrawn fraudulently by forging the signatures of the petitioner and also impersonation by others. The petitioner requested the authorities to take necessary action to get back the said amount of money. The request was not considered and the present writ petition Is filed against the persons involved in the fraudulent withdrawal and also for direction to the respondents to make payment of the amount of Rs.5,16,880/- to the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a sum of Rs.5,16,880/- was sanctioned by the competent authorities of the Government of Manipur for the land acquired and the petitioner was out of the station by driving a heavy vehicle and he had no knowledge about the issuance of special notice and also not about any notice sent by the land acquisition to the petitioner to produce any identification certificate with his specimen signature. the petitioner does not know the notice and when the petitioner returned the petitioner came to know that a piece of the homestead land measuring 0.78 acres has been acquired by the third respondent and fixed compensation of Rs.5,16,880/-. And the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.481 of 2013 before the Imphal bench and also an FIR under Sections 379, 393, 403, 419, 426, 468, 471, 506, and 34 IPC the learned counsel next submitted that amount of Rs.5,16,880/- was handed over: to some other person instead of the petitioner by impersonation and requested to issue direction to respondent authorities to make payment for the petitioners land

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that when the payment of land compensation to the affected pattadars, including the petitioner, was made, the petitioner and witnesses K.Bidyapati Singh, Head Master of Salankonjin Ching Tam Junior School, who were identified by the Up-Pradhan of Saigon G.P. Ahanthem Ibungo Singh of Salankonjin were present and the petitioner had collected the amount of his land compensation from the office of the third respondent and the payment was made based on necessary documents required and Since the petitioner has been paid due compensation amount as per the signature and is identified by two witnesses then the allegation of fraud and impersonation canvassed by the petitioner have no legs and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

The court considered the rival submissions and after overall analysis of the materials produced the dismissal of the writ petition on the ground that no material available in support of the petitioner’s case of fraudulent withdrawal of the compensation amount would not serve any purpose and the alleged compensation amount by playing fraud by some other persons, cognizance has been taken by the respondent authorities and the inquiry is stated to be pending. Hence this court finds it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to authority to complete the inquiry in the present matter if fraud is proved, then to take action against the persons involved in the alleged withdrawal of the compensation amount. Hence the writ petition is disposed of.

Click here to read the Judgment 

Judgment reviewed by Naveen Sharma

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat