2025:JHHC:15451 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 1242 of 2008 ------ Puti Tiu, son of Late Hari Tiu, resident of Heshal, P.O. Icha, P.S. Raj Nagar, District Seraikela Kharswan .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Acquisition, Project Building, HEC, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi 3. Commissioner, Kolhan Sub-Division, Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum 4. Deputy Commissioner, Seraikela Kharsawan, Collectorate, P.O. & P.S. Seraikela, District Seraikela Kharsawan 5. Additional Director, Swarnrekha Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Adityapur, District Seraikela Kharsawan 6. Land Acquisition Officer, Swarnrekha Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Adityapur, District Seraikela Kharsawan 7. Dibar Tiu, son of son of Late Hari Tiu, resident of Heshal, P.O. Icha, P.S. Raj Nagar, District Seraikela Kharswan 8. Sitakant Swain 9. Surendra Swain 10. Purnesh Swain 11. Dilip Swain All sons of Late Parvati Devi, resident of Roruan, P.O. Rowan, District Mayurbhanj, State Orissa .... .... .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Ms. J. Mazumdar, Advocate For the Respondents : Ms. Mohua Palit, Advocate . ------ Order No.10 / Dated : 13.06.2025 Petitioner is aggrieved by disbursement of compensation in land acquisition case to one Parvati Devi, who claimed to be the stranger to the family of which the land was acquired. 2. On perusal of pleadings of the instant writ petition and annexures with it, it is apparent that a representation was filed before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Adityapur, against the award of compensation in favour of Parvati Devi, with respect of land appertaining to Khata No.23 Plot Nos.122, 123, 132 and 134, measuring total area 2.58 decimal. 3. In pursuance to the objection raised by the petitioner vide letter dated 02.01.2008, the petitioner was directed to file relevant documents in support of his claim by the Land Acquisition Officer, Suvarnrekha 2025:JHHC:15451 Pariyojana. 4. There is no further materials to show that the petitioner appeared before the competent authority with relevant papers in support of his claim. It is also not clear if any final order was passed on the said representation. It appears that this writ petition is premature without exhausting the alternative remedy and is accordingly, dismissed. Petitioner is however at liberty to press his claim before competent authority. Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit