IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.6865 of 2024 ----- Shambhu Thakur, aged about 80 years, son of Late Baiju Thakur, resident of Mohalla Noora, Imam Bara Gali, Hazaribagh, P.O. Hazaribagh, P.S. Sadar (Hazaribagh), District Hazaribagh. .......... Petitioner. -Versus- 1. State of Jharkhand. 2. Municipal Commissioner, Hazaribagh, having its office at Hazaribagh, P.O. + P.S. Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. 3. Executive Engineer, Hazaribagh, Municipal Corporation, Hazaribagh, P.O. + P.S. + District-Hazaribagh. .......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Pratik Sen, Advocate For the Res. Nos.1 : Mr. Mohan Kr. Dubey, A.C. to A.G. For the Res. Nos.2&3: Mr. Ranjan Pd. Sinha, Advocate ----- Order No.03 Date: 12.02.2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner for utilizing his 2 decimals of land out of 13.5 decimals appertaining to Plot No.165, Khata No.46 situated at Mouza-Nura, District-Hazaribagh for construction of P.C.C. road without lawfully acquiring the same. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the contents of the present writ petition. 3. The petitioner had earlier moved before this Court by preferring a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.4671 of 2021 with following prayer : “The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.02.2021 (Annexure-11 to the petition) passed in Complaint Case No.01/Lok. (N.Vi.Vi.) 05/2019 whereby learned Lokayukta, Jharkhand has refused to proceed further in the matter pursuant to the complaint filed by the petitioner 2 W.P.(C) No.6865 of 2024 observing that the petitioner did not object at the time of construction of P.C.C. road over his land appertaining to plot no. 165, Khata No. 46, Mouza- Nura which was made by the then Municipal Corporation, Hazaribag in public interest. The petitioner has further prayed that upon quashing the said letter, the concerned respondent authorities may be directed to pay adequate compensation to the petitioner for taking away his aforesaid land for the said purpose measuring an area of 02 decimals out of 13.5 decimals.” 4. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 17th October, 2022, the operative part of which reads as under : “4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the observation made by the learned Lokayukta that the petitioner did not raise any objection at the time of construction of the road is factually incorrect which may go against the petitioner if he takes recourse of seeking compensation for his land utilized for construction of public road. 5. Considering the said aspect of the matter, this Court is of the view that the said observation made by the learned Lokayukta may not be treated to be conclusive in nature. 6. Accordingly, so far as the petitioner’s prayer seeking compensation for utilizing part of his land (02 decimals) for construction of public road is concerned, he is at liberty to take appropriate recourse as provided under law for the same and the aforesaid observation of learned Lokayukta will not prejudice his case which will be considered by the appropriate forum/court of law as per the available facts.” 5. Now by way of present writ petition, the petitioner has contended that even after filing of an application on 10th September, 2024 before the Executive Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Hazaribagh (the respondent no.3) seeking compensation, the same is not being responded. 6. This Court while disposing of the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.4671 of 2021 had granted liberty to the petitioner with respect to his prayer seeking compensation for utilizing part of his land (02 decimals) for construction of public road to take appropriate recourse as provided under law and the observation made by the learned Lokayukta was not to 3 W.P.(C) No.6865 of 2024 prejudice his case which was to be considered by the appropriate forum/court of law as per the available facts. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 submits that in fact the application dated 10th September, 2024 was wrongly filed by the petitioner before the respondent no.3 as the said respondent is merely the executing body. 8. It is well known that any land is either transferred by the State Government to the beneficiary, if the same belongs to it or is acquired under the provisions of law at the instance of the State Government, if the same is private/raiyati land. 9. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case and keeping in view the observation as has already been made by this Court in the order dated 17th October, 2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.4671 of 2021, no further order is required to be passed on the present issue. 10. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Rohit/