2026:JHHC:11712 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2499 of 2026 ------ Santosh Kumar Mahato @ Santosh Mahto, S/o Late Gandharv Mahato, resident of Village:- Khudibera, PO-Khudibera, PS- Kasmar, Dist-Bokaro. … … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, PO & PS-Bokaro Steel City, Dist-Bokaro. 3. District Land Acquisition Officer, Bokaro, PO & PS-Bokaro Steel City, Dist-Bokaro. … … Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Pankaj Verma, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, AC to GA-V ------ 03/ 22nd April, 2026 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner prays to quash the letter contained in Memo No.632 dated 16.05.2025 (Annexure-3), whereby the entire amount of Rs.8,16,206.00 is directed to be deposited by the petitioner with the respondents in view of the fact that one alleged cousin of the petitioner has made a complaint and also claimed share in the amount of compensation. 3. After hearing the parties at length, I find that the petitioner being the land loser was awarded compensation of Rs.8,16,206.00 under the National Highways Act. The amount was deposited in the account of the petitioner. Thereafter, one alleged cousin of the petitioner complained and claimed share in the said compensation. On receipt of the said objection, the respondents have issued a direction to the petitioner to return the aforesaid amount and they had also freezed the bank account. 4. The objection made by the cousin of the petitioner needs to be heard and decided in terms of the Section 3(H)(4) of National Highways Act. If ultimately it is found that the said person has got a legitimate share in the amount, the same has to be paid to the cousin. 5. If in the meantime, the petitioner spends the entire 2026:JHHC:11712 2 money, it will be very difficult to recover the amount, thus, the respondents have correctly issued the aforesaid direction of freezing the bank accounts. I find no illegality in the same. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that over and above Rs.8,16,206.00, there are other amounts is lying in the account of the petitioner. 7. Considering his submission, I direct the respondent- State to freeze the bank account of the petitioner only to the tune of Rs.8,16,206.00. The petitioner is free to transact any amount which is more than Rs.8,16,206.00 from his account. 8. It is expected that the objection should be referred to the Civil Court, at the earliest and it is expected that the matter would be decided finally, without any delay. 9. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. 10. Pending IAs, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 22.04.2026 S.K.D/CP-2 Uploaded on 08.05.2026