IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6738 of 2023 1. Ajay Prajapati 2. Sanjay Prajapati ….. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Ranchi 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau 3. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Palamau 4. The Circle Officer, Chhattarpur, Palamau 5. The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Palamau ….. Respondents ----- CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioners: Mr. Sheo Kr. Singh For the State: Ms. Amrita Banerjee, A.C to G.P-I For the NHAI: Ms. Sweety Topno ----- 06/15.01.2025 Learned counsel for the petitioners confines the prayer made in the present writ petition to the extent of issuance of direction upon the concerned respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners for acquisition of their lands appertaining to Khata No. 13, Plot No. 384, measuring an area of 45 Decimals and Khata No. 14, Plot Nos. 401, 402 & 408, measuring an area of 26 Decimals, Village-Kauwal, Thana No. 205, Block-Chhattarpur, District-Palamau for construction of NH-98. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had purchased the aforesaid lands from Sital Prasad Singh through registered sale deed No. 2784 dated 21.03.2001. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred online application seeking mutation of the said lands in their names which was registered as Mutation Case No. 150 R27/2021-2022. The said application was however rejected by the respondent No.4 vide order dated 21.10.2021. Aggrieved with the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal being Mutation Appeal Case No. 126/2022-2023 in the Court of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chhattarpur, Palmau, who vide order dated 03.12.2022, set aside the order dated 21.10.2022 passed by the respondent No.4 in Mutation Case No. 150 R27/2021-2022 with a direction to the respondent No.4 to pass a fresh order keeping in view the SOP issued by the State Government in that regard. 3. It is further submitted that though pursuant to the said order passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chhattarpur, Palmau, the respondent No.4 did not pass any formal order mutating the names of the petitioners with respect to the said land, however, vide letter No. 735 dated 07.06.2023, the land possession certificate with respect to Plot No. 384 of Khata No. 13 was issued by the respondent No.4 in their favour. The grievance of the petitioners is that instead of paying compensation for acquisition of the lands in question to them, a notice under Section 3-G of the National Highways Act, 1956 has been issued to the vendor of the lands in question i.e. Sital Prasad Singh. The petitioners have represented the respondents in this regard, however, the same have not been responded, which has compelled them to prefer the present writ petition. 4. Ms. Amrita Banerjee, learned A.C to G.P-I appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, submits that if the petitioners prefer a fresh application seeking compensation of the lands in question before the respondent No.3, an appropriate decision in accordance with law will be taken by the said respondent within a time frame. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the prayer made in the present writ petition, without commenting on the merit of the case, the petitioners are given liberty to prefer a fresh representation on the present issue before the respondent No.3. On receipt of the said representation, the respondent No.3, after verifying the relevant records and on calling for the relevant documents from the respondent No.4 as well as on providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and Sital Prasad Singh, shall take an appropriate informed decision in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of filing of the said representation. 6. The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid liberty and direction. Satish/- (RAJESH SHANKAR, J)