2025:JHHC:14489-DB -1 of 5- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(PIL) No. 5019 of 2023 Dr. Nishikant Dubey, aged about 54 years, Son of Shri Radhe Shyam Dubey, Resident of 18, G.R.G. Road, P.O. & P.S. G.R.G. Road, District New Delhi-110001. ... ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Government of India, Rail Bhawan, 1, P.O. & P.S. Raisina Road, District New Delhi. 2. Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, through its Secretary officiating from his office at North Block, Cabinet Secretariat, Raisina Hills, P.O. & P.S. New Delhi, District New Delhi. 3. General Manager, Eastern Railways, officiating from his Office at 17, Netaji Subhas Road, P.O. & P.S. Netaji Subhas Road, District Kolkata-700001. 4. State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, officiating from his Office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 5. Additional Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, officiating from his Office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 6. Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority, through its Regional Director, Santhal Pargana, Deoghar, officiating from his office at O/o Regional Director, JIADA, Santhal Pargana, P.O. & P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar. … … ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Parth Jalan, Advocate For the Union of India: Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, CGC For the State: Mr. Achyut Keshav, AAG For the Respondent No. 6: Mr. C.G.A. Bardhan, Advocate --------- Reserved on: 06.05.2025 Pronounced on: 5/06/2025 2025:JHHC:14489-DB -2 of 5- Per M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. 1) This Public Interest Litigation is filed by a Member of Parliament for issuance of a direction to respondents 4 to 6 (State of Jharkhand and the Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority) to provide 7.90 acres of land which was leased in favour of respondent 6 and for a further direction upon the respondent no.4 to de-notify the said land allotted in favour of the respondent No.6 and provide the same to the respondent no. 3 for the public purpose of ensuring the 2nd entry at Jasidih Railway Station. 2) The basis for this prayer of the petitioner is that 2nd entry at South Side of the Jasidih Railway Station is required to be constructed and the project for the said purpose was sanctioned at a cost of Rs. 67.58 crores by the Eastern Railways ( respondent no.3) on the demand of the respondent no.4 (State Government) and the State had assured to provide the said land on the proposed location, but the said land was found to be settled by virtue of a lease executed by the State in favour of the respondent no.6/Authority. 3) In the counter-affidavit filed by the State Government, it is contended that for expansion of the Jasidih Railway Station a proposal was made by the Eastern Railways to open a 2nd entry at South Side of the Jasidih Railway Station and for that there is a requirement of 7.90 acres of land in plot nos. 216/215/218/737 under Mouja Jasidih, no. 118; that this land was private land 2025:JHHC:14489-DB -3 of 5- belonging to one Ganesh Chandra Chattopadhyay as per entry in the survey settlement i.e. Gantzer Settlement; that this land was already acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and then it was transferred to the respondent no.6’s predecessor. It is stated that only the respondent No.6 can take a decision in that regard. It is stated that the State Government has no role to play in the same. 4) The respondent No.6 filed another counter affidavit stating that only 1.10 acres of land is available and for the rest of 6.80 acres of land sought by the Railways, requisition can be made to the District administration subject to obtaining NOC from the Forest Department and subject to payment of the cost of land of Rs.57,02,37,357/- per acre as per the current market value as on 01.08.2019. It is stated that the Regional Director of the respondent No.6 informed this to the Divisional Railway Manager, Eastern Railway, Asansol on 18.02.2021 and the latter had addressed a letter dt. 04.03.2021 and another letter dt. 07.06.2021 to the Regional Director of the respondent No.6 stating that if it is not possible for transfer of land free of cost, the Railways would invest only Rs.38.05 crores. 5) It is contended that as per the provisions of the JIADA Regulations, 2016, there can only be allotment of land on lease and unless the Railways pays Rs.57,02,37,357/- for the 1.00 acres of land available with the respondent No.6, matter cannot be proceeded with because the Railways had offered only 2025:JHHC:14489-DB -4 of 5- Rs.38.05 Crores. There was also subsequent correspondence indicating that only a permanent settlement of land can be made to the Railways by the respondent No.6, but there cannot be an absolute transfer of land; and in any event, 7.90 acres of land was not available and for acquiring the same it would cost Rs.456 crores. 6) Thus, there appears to be a stalemate between respondent No.3/State Government on the one side and respondents 4 & 6 on the other side and neither is willing to accommodate the other. 7) The question which arises for consideration is whether this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can issue any direction to the respondent no. 4 i.e. State of Jharkhand or to the respondent no. 6 i.e. JIADA to compel the State to take back the land allotted in favour of the JIADA and give it to the respondent No.3 for the purpose of ensuring the 2nd entry at the Jasidih Railway Station? 8) The counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out how such a direction can be issued by this Court in favour of the petitioner or the Eastern Railways and against the State Government while it may be undoubtedly desirable to have a second entry for the Jasidih Railway Station which would be convenient to the persons getting off at the said station and travelling by train. 2025:JHHC:14489-DB -5 of 5- 9) It is not within the province of the jurisdiction of this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to the respondent nos. 4 and 6 to surrender the land of 7.90 acres sought by the respondent No.3 for providing the said 2nd entry at the said Railway Station. 10) The allotment of the land by the respondent No.4 to respondent No.6 was as per the policy decision of the State Government and it cannot be said that the said decision is not in public interest. 11) While there may also be a public interest in making more land available by respondents 4 & 6 for providing the 2nd entry to the Jasidih Railway Station, it is not for this Court to decide which would these competing actions, both involving public interest, should have priority over the other. Ordinarily Courts cannot enter into this arena and lightly interfere in deciding that one of them is more important than the other. 12) In this view of the matter no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this Public Interest Litigation. 13) Accordingly, this Public Interest Litigation is dismissed. No costs. (M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) N.A.F.R. MM