2025:JHHC:21199 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.3476 of 2025 ----- Santosh Kumar, aged about 58 years, Son of Smt. Maheshwari Devi and Sri Bhikhari Ram Prajapati, Resident of House No.4, North Layout, Sonari, P.O. & P.S. Sonari, District-East Singhbhum. .......... Petitioner. -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Land Reforms and Revenue, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 2. The Deputy Commissioner (Land Acquisition Branch), Seraikella-Kharsawan, P.O., P.S. & District- Seraikella- Kharsawan. 3. District Land Acquisition Officer, Seraikella-Kharsawan. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Seraikella-Kharsawan. 5. The Circle Officer, Chandil, Seraikella-Kharsawan. .......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Shankar Jha, Advocate For the Respondents: Ms. Omiya Anusha, AC to AAG-IA ----- Order No.02 Date: 31.07.2025 1. The grievance of the petitioner as raised in the present writ petition is that though the land of petitioner’s mother, namely, Maheshwari Devi appertaining to Khata No.119, Khesra Nos.385, 376, 371 and 366 situated at Mouza-Dono, Thana No.331, Circle-Chandil, District Seraikella-Kharsawan, total measuring an area of 0.49 acre was acquired by the respondent no.2 for construction of two lane road from ‘Kandarbera’ to ‘Domuhani’ vide Land Acquisition Case No.38 of 2014-14, however, the compensation has been paid to the awardee/his mother only for 0.25 acre of land. Aggrieved with non-payment of compensation for 0.24 acre of land, the petitioner’s mother repeatedly represented the respondent authorities, however, the same having not been responded, 2025:JHHC:21199 2 the petitioner on behalf of his mother has preferred the present writ petition. 2. Ms. Omiya Anusha, learned A.C. to A.A.G.-IA appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that if the petitioner’s mother prefers a fresh representation in this regard before the respondent no.3, an appropriate decision in accordance with law will be taken by the said respondent within a time. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of the prayer made in the present writ petition, without entering into the merit of the case, the petitioner’s mother is 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 providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner’s mother/her representative and any other concerned person (if so needed), shall take appropriate informed decision in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of filing of the said representation. 4. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with aforesaid liberty and direction. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Rohit/