2025:JHHC:29611 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 5353 of 2025 Sekh Sajahan aged about 72 years son of Late Layekjan Sekh, resident of village Nayani Gangadda, P.O. Khanpur, P.S. Murarai, District Birbhum (West Bengal). ….........Petitioner(s) Vrs. 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, P.O. and P.S. Pakur, District Pakur. 4. The Land Acquisition Officer, Pakur, P.O. and P.S. Pakur, District Pakur. 5.Sub-Registrar, Pakur, P.O. and P.S. Pakur, District Pakur. 6. Circle Officer, Maheshpr, P.O. and P.S. Maheshpur, District Pakur. .......... Respondent(s) ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Dilip Kumar Chakraverty, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, A.C. to A.A.G-V 02/24.09.2025 This is the special case where the help of the Bar is needed. 2. An Advocate is not only supposed to be the spokesperson of the client, but he is also supposed to prepare the case as per the mandate of the law. That is why monopoly has been created in favour of Advocate Advocate is supposed to collect the material from his client and present it after processing it through the law operating in the field. 3. The acquisition of the land is well defined prescribed procedure. There is publication of the notices/ notifications/ official gazette etc. i.e., the entire information is in the public domain. 3. In the present case, one of the prayers has been made that right to sale and purchase has been snatched. 4. However, this argument is fallacious. 5. The land in question has already been acquired, as has been admitted by the petitioner himself. 6. In that view of the matter, no relief can be granted. 7. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) 24.09.2025 A.Mohanty