2025:JHHC:11376-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A No. 601 of 2024 Md. Mumtaz Ansari, S/o Md. Amin Ansari, R/o Village-Ray, PO-Ray, PS-Khalari, District-Ranchi … … Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. The Central Coalfields Limited, through its Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Darbhanga House, Ranchi 4. The General Manager, North Karnpura Area, Central Coalfields Limited, Khalari, Ranchi 5. The General Manager (L & R), Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi 6. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi 7. The Circle Officer, Khalari, Ranchi … … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Appellant : Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate Mr. Manish Ranjan, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, AC to AG For the Respondent-CCL : Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate Mr. Shivam Utkarsh Sahay, Adv. ----- 03/15.04.2025 Heard both the sides. 2. Perused the impugned order dated 16.07.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 5028 of 2011. According to the pleadings of the appellant, he was only a daily wages employee, who along with his ancestors had long back shifted to the State of Gujarat. He claims to have returned to his residence recently and had come to know that certain lands belonging to his ancestors have been illegally possessed by the respondents without providing any compensation and employment. The use of the subject land by the respondents is admitted at least from 1973 i.e. since passing of the Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973. 2025:JHHC:11376-DB 2 Since the appellant was not even born at that point of time, it appears that his claim is purely speculative and he is seeking to revive claims which are hopelessly barred under the said law at this point of time. 3. Though learned counsel for the appellant has relied on few judgments, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of our finding that the claim of the appellant is totally speculative, it is not necessary to deal with the said judgments. 4. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Manish/Ritesh