2025:JHHC:20740 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2065 of 2025 1. Kishun Mahto, S/o late Anhachh Mahto 2. Jagdish Mahto, S/o late Radho Mahto 3. Shiv Dayal Mahto, S/o late Radho Mahto 4. Ishwar Dayal Mahto, S/o late Radho Mahto 5. Nikhil Kumar Dangi, S/o Rohan Ram 6. Puspa Devi, Daughter-in-law of Rohan Ram 7. Anuj Kumar Kashyap, S/o late Bigal Mahto 8. Hemant Kumar Mahto, S/o late Bigal Mahto 9. Dhaneswar Mahto, S/o Mahabir Mahto 10. Pancham Mahto, S/o late Nago Mahto 11. Arjun Mahto, S/o Late Nago Mahto 12. Rajender Mahto, S/o late Nago Mahto 13. Rajesh Kumar, S/o late Nago Mahto All residents of village-Davatu, PO & PS-Gola, District- Ramgarh ... … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh 3. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Ramgarh 4. The Project Officer, Bharat Mala Project, National Highway, Dhanbad 5. Gopi Prasad, S/o late Ganga Prasad, R/o Gola Ramgarh Road, Near Gola P.S., PO & PS-Gola, District-Ramgarh … … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sarju Prasad, Advocate Mr. Atma Ram Chaudhary, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Ankit Kumar, AC to SC-I ----- 03/28.07.2025 The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondent to pass an award in favour of the petitioners in lieu of acquisition of their land appertaining to Plot No. 520, Hal Plot No. 520/700 under Khata No. 63, situated at Village-Davatu, PS-Gola, measuring an area of 1.8248887 acres for the purpose of construction of road from Jaina More to Ormanjhi via Gola under “Bharat Mala Project” and to pay compensation to them as per the provisions of law along with interest. 2025:JHHC:20740 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land appertaining to Khata No. 63, Plot No. 520, Village-Davatu, PS- Gola, District-Ramgarh, measuring an area of 5.37 acres was settled in favour of Seva Koiry @ Seva Mahto in 1926 through ‘Hukumnama’ by the then landlord Manager Saheb Bahadur, Ramgarh Wards estate, Hazaribagh. After the settlement of the aforesaid land, the same was demarcated by the Amin of the ex-landlord and Fard Report Amin Parcha was granted to Seva Mahto in the year 1929. Thereafter, on an application by the settlee – Seva Mahto, rent reduction proceeding under Section 33A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 was initiated by the respondent no. 2 – the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh in which he was noticed to appear before him on 23.11.1939. Thereafter, rent was reduced by the order of the respondent no. 2. 3. It is also submitted that subsequently, rent receipt was issued and he was given possession over the same. The settlee – Seva Koiry used to pay rent to the ex-landlord. After vesting of zamindari, the settlee has been paying rent to the State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and his name has also been entered in Register-II. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that since the said land was settled to Seva Koiry @ Seva Mahto by the ex-landlord, the same became his raiyati land from the date of settlement under the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1956. Seva Mahto died leaving behind his four sons namely, Anhachh Mahto, Janak Mahto, Mahabir Mahto and Radho Mahto. Anhachh 2025:JHHC:20740 3 Mahto died leaving behind his sole son Kishun Mahto (the petitioner no. 1). Janak Mahto died leaving behind his two sons Rohan Ram and Bigal Mahto. Rohan Ram also died leaving behind one son – Nikhil Kumar Dangi (the petitioner no. 5) and daughter-in-law – Puspa Devi (the petitioner no. 6). Bigal Mahto also died leaving behind two sons Anuj Kumar Kashyap and Hemant Kumar Mahto (the petitioner nos. 7 and 8 respectively). Mahabir Mahto also died leaving behind two sons Dhaneswar Mahto and Nago @ Ganesh Mahto. Nago Mahto died leaving behind four sons namely, Pancham Mahto, Arjun Mahto, Rajender Mahto and Rajesh Kumar (the petitioner nos. 10 to 13 respectively). Radho Mahto died leaving behind three sons namely, Jagdish Mahto, Shiv Dayal Mahto and Ishwar Dayal Mahto (the petitioner nos. 2 to 4 respectively). 5. It is also contended that the petitioners are in possession of the aforesaid land, however, in Register-II, name of one Diwakar Lal has been mentioned. In fact, Diwakar Lal or his descendant Gopi Prasad, who has been made the proforma respondent no. 5, has no concern with the acquired land. The petitioners repeatedly represented the respondent no. 3 – the District Land Acquisition Officer, Ramgarh in this regard, however, the same remained unresponded, which compelled them to prefer the present writ petition. 6. Mr. Ankit Kumar, AC to SC-I appearing on behalf of the State respondents, submits that the petitioners’ aforesaid claim is required to be factually examined by the respondent no. 3. Hence, if the petitioners prefer fresh representation in this regard before 2025:JHHC:20740 4 the respondent no. 3, an appropriate decision in accordance with law will be taken by the said respondent within a timeframe. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of prayer made in the writ petition, without entering into the merit of the case, the petitioners are given liberty to prefer fresh representation in this regard along with the relevant documents before the respondent no. 3. On receipt of the said representation, the respondent no. 3, after verifying the relevant records and on providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and other concerned persons, shall take an appropriate informed decision in accordance with law within 12 weeks from the date of filing of the representation. 8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid liberty and direction. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Manish