( 2026:JHHC:14038-DB ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 112 of 2026 1. Vimal Hansda, aged about 49 years, S/O Late Shibu Hansda, resident of H No.17, Village-Chhota Manikpur, P.O.+P.S.-Jasidih, District-Deoghar (Jharkhand) 814142. 2. Sukhu Hansda, aged about 38 years, S/O Late Dhena Hansda, resident of Babudih Tola, Village-Chhota Manikpur, P.O.+P.S.- Jasidih, District- Deoghar (Jharkhand) 814142. 3. Babua Hembram, aged about 67 years, S/O Late Tere Hembram, resident of Village-Chhota Manikpur, P.O.+P.S.-Jasidih, District-Deoghar (Jharkhand) 814142. 4. Nilmani Soren, aged about 55 years, S/O Late Shikar Murmu, resident of H.No. 25, Village-Chhota Manikpur, P.O.+P.S.-Jasidih, District- Deoghar (Jharkhand) 814142. 5. Ramlal Hembram, aged about 64 years, S/O Late Karu Hembram, resident of Village-Chhota Manikpur, P.O.+P.S.-Jasidih, District- Deoghar (Jharkhand) 814142. 6. Gopal Hembram, aged about 70 years, S/O Late Bhoto Hembram, resident of H.No. 18, Village-Chhota Manikpur, Panchayat- Konkaribank, P.O.+P.S. Jasidih, District-Deoghar (Jharkhand) 814142. 7. Sikandar Tudu, aged about 28 years, S/O Shibu Tudu, resident of Village-Chhota Manikpur, Panchayat Kokaribank, P.O.+P.S.- Jasidih, District-Deoghar (Jharkhand) 814142. 8. Chunu Hembram, aged about 53 years, S/O Late Manjhlu Hembram, resident of Village-Chhota Manikpur, P.O.+P.S.-Jasidih, District- Deoghar (Jharkhand) 814142. 9. Arun Hansda, aged about 39 years, S/O Late Puran Hansda, resident of Village-Chhota Manikpur, P.O.+P.S.- Jasidih, District-Deoghar (Jharkhand) 814142. 10. Munshi Marandi, aged about 46 years, S/O Late Mangara Marandi, resident of Village-Chhota Manikpur, P.O.+P.S.-Jasidih, District- Deoghar (Jharkhand) 814142. 11. Manju Marandi, aged about 51 years, Wife of Late Visulal Hembram, resident of Village-Chhota Manikpur, P.O.+P.S.-Jasidih, District- Deoghar (Jharkhand) 814142. …… ….. Appellants Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O.+P.S.-Dhurwa, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand)- 834004. 2. The Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Ranchi, P.O.+P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand)- 834002. 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority (JIADA), Namkum, PO- Namkum, P.S. NamKum, District- Ranchi-834004. 4. The Secretary, Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Nam Kum, P.S. Authority (JIADA), Namkum, PO- Namkum, P.S. NamKum, District- Ranchi-834004. ( 2026:JHHC:14038-DB ) 2 5. The Commissioner, Santhal Pargana, Dumka, P.O.+P.S.+ District- Dumka (Jharkhand)-814101. 6. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, P.O.+P.S.+ District-Deoghar, Jharkhand-814112. 7. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Deoghar, P.O.+P.S.+ District- Deoghar, Jharkhand-814112. 8. The Chairman & Managing Director, Fertilizer Corporation of India, A- 14, 5th Floor, PDIL Bhawan, Sector 1, NOIDA, PO. Noida, Head Post Office, PS-Gautam Budh Nagar, Sector-20, Police Station-Noida, District- Gautam Budh Nagar, (U.P.)-201301. 9. The Government of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Old Secretariat, Bailey Road, P.O. & P.S.- Secretariate, Patna, District-Patna (Bihar)-800015. 10. The Commissioner, Bhagalpur, P.O. + P.S. + District-Bhagalpur (Bihar)-812001. ….. …. Respondents ------ CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ------ For the Appellants : Mr Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr Ram Badan Choubey, Advocate For the Resp-State : Mr Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III For the Resp. Nos. 3 & 4 : Mr V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr C.A. Bardhan, Advocate For the Resp. No. 8 : Mr Jyoti Prasad Sinha, Advocate For the Resp. Nos. 9 & 10: Mr S.P. Roy, Advocate ----- 04 /Dated: 11.05.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal challenges the learned Single Judge's order dated 29.01.2026, dismissing the petitioners’ W.P.(C) No. 493 of 2026. 3. Mr Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the appellants had pleaded that they continued to be in possession of the lands acquired in 1974. Therefore, without even waiting for a counter affidavit, their petition should not have been dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches. 4. Accordingly, we had directed the respondents to file a counter affidavit in this matter. Ms Deepmala, Regional Deputy Director, Jharkhand Industrial ( 2026:JHHC:14038-DB ) 3 Area Development Authority, has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the 3rd and 4th respondents. 5. In paragraph-7 of this affidavit, there is a clear statement about the possession of the acquired land being taken over vide Memo No. 1655 dated 26.11.1974 and handed over to the Patna Industrial Development Authority (now JIADA) through a deed of conveyance. 6. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd and 4th respondents are transcribed below for the convenience of reference:- “7. That as per Rule 9 (2) of Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority 1974 an area of 567.25 Acres of land of five Mouzas being Chhota Manikpur (Thana No. 116), Jasidih (Thana No. 118), Badladih (Thana No. 117), Gangti (Thana No. 209) and Photabandh (Thana No. 27) in plot No. 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 245, 246, 257 to 296, 298, 299, 300, 342, 343, 344, 363 to 376, 391 to 426 and part of 486 situated at Jasidih (Santhal Pragana) Industrial Area were handed over to Patna Industrial Area Development Authority, Now JIADA Santhal Pragana Region through deed of conveyance vide Memo No. 1655 dated 26/11/1974 by Government of Bihar in which an area of 141.99 Acres of land is Included of Chhota Manikpur. It is further stated that since then authority was in physical possession of the said above lands. 8. That after getting the physical possession of the above said lands, Patna Industrial Area Development Authority, allotted 20 Acres of land of Chhota Manikpur to M/s. Hatwah Metals & Tubes Limited on 01/11/1975 in Jasidih Industrial Area. Later on the said land was also allotted in favour of M/s. Anmol Agrofarm Inputs Pvt. Ltd. on 18/11/2009 as because M/s. Anmol Agrofarm Inputs Pvt. Ltd. was the auction purchaser of the said land.” ( 2026:JHHC:14038-DB ) 4 7. Mr Anil Kumar Singh, however, referred to Annexure-E dated 02.07.2025, to submit that this document, which is annexed to the counter affidavit, shows that the petitioners are still in possession, or, in any case, that possession was taken over only in 2025. 8. On perusing this document, we do not agree that any such inference can be drawn. This is more so, given the clear and categorical statements in the counter affidavit, duly supported by clear and unambiguous documents. Any attempt to disturb the possession or interfere with it can hardly be described as a document acknowledging or confirming possession of the lands acquired way back in 1974. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balwant Narayan Bhagde Vs. M.D. Bhagwat & ors, AIR 1975 SC 1767, to submit that there is a detailed procedure for taking possession, and that this procedure has not been complied with. 10. We have considered this decision. The appellants’ pleading in this case was that they continued in possession. There was no complaint about any irregular or illegal taking over of the possession. In any event, the cause of action for even making such an allegation accrued in 1974, and this petition has been instituted only in 2025. Therefore, even after considering this decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no case is made out for the grant of any relief. 11. Now, learned counsel for the petitioner hands over the reference of the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Writ-C No. 2000170 of 2015 (Mata Baksh Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.). He says that this is a decision that ( 2026:JHHC:14038-DB ) 5 addresses the urgency provisions contained in Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 12. Again, we are unable to understand how this decision can be of any assistance whatsoever to the appellants, when in fact, the petition is being dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay and laches. 13. For all the above reasons, we find no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 14. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal without any order for costs. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) May 11, 2026 R.Kr / Vedanti NAFR Uploaded on 13.05.2026