2026:JHHC:17781 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No. 55 of 2024 General Manager (L & R), Central Coalfields Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, having its registered Office at Darbhanga House, PO and PS-Kotwali, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand), through its General Manager (Land & Revenue), having office at Darbhanga House, PO and PS-Kotwali, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) and also through its H.O.D.(Legal) Sri Jobe V.P., aged about 53 years, Son of Late V.V. Philip, residing at 396/B, Road No. 4-C, Ashok Nagar, PO-Doranda, PS Argora, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand ) . … … Opposite party No.2/Appellant Versus 1. Dineshwar Karmali, S/o Late Puran Karmali 2. Tilak Karmali, S/o Late Bisun Karmali 3. Minia Karmali, W/o Late Birja Karmali 4. Sundar Karmli, S/o Birja Karmali 5. Kishore Karmli, S/o Birja Karmali 6. Prameshwar Karmli, S/o Birja Karmali 7. Sarita Devi, D/o Birja Karmali 8. Bhagwat Karmali, S/o Late Butan Karmali 9. Raju Karmali, S/o Late Butan Karmali 10. Jainandan Vishwakarma @ Jainandan Karmali, S/o Late Baripat Karmali @ Bariatu Karmali 11. Mosomat Babni @ Budhani, W/o Late Sitan Karmali All residents of Village- Topa Basti, P.O & P.S.- Mandu, District-Ramgarh (Jharkhand) ... ... Petitioners/Respondents 12. The Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. & P.S.- Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh (Jharkhand) ... ... Opposite party No.1/Respondent --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Kanishka Deo, AC to Mr. A. K. Das, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate --- 16/17.06.2026 1. This First Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 30th November, 2022 (Decree signed on 13th December, 2022) vide Award No.68 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)- II-cum-Land Acquisition Judge, Ramgarh in L.A.R. Case No.455 of 2026:JHHC:17781 2 2012, arising out of L.A. Record No.6/2005-06 whereby and whereunder the compensation payable to the claimants has been increased @ Rs.3,238/- per decimal alongwith interest. I.A. No. 1173 of 2025 in F.A. No. 55 of 2024 2. This interlocutory application read with supplementary affidavit has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 278 days in filing this first appeal. 3. Learned counsel has submitted that the present first appeal is covered by the Judgment passed in F.A. No.596 of 2014 and other analogous cases which in turn has been followed in F.A. No.48 of 2024 and other analogous cases decided on 16.09.2025. 4. Learned counsel has also submitted that in First Appeal No.48 of 2024 and other analogous cases, the delay was condoned almost to the same extent as involved in the present case and condonation of delay was subject to the payment of Rs.5,000/-. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that it is not in dispute that the present case is covered by the aforesaid judgment. He has also submitted that if delay is condoned, then the cost be also provided to the respondents. 6. Considering the averments made in the limitation petition and being satisfied with the cause shown, the delay in filing the first appeal is condoned, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to the private respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the private respondents are directed to provide the bank account details to the counsel to the appellant within a period of 4 weeks, so that the aforesaid amount be remitted directly in their bank account within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the bank account details. F.A. No. 55 of 2024 8. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the case is taken-up on merits. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the present first appeal is covered by the judgment passed in F.A. No.596 2026:JHHC:17781 3 of 2014 and other analogous cases which in turn has been followed in F.A. No.48 of 2024 and other analogous cases decided on 16.09.2025. 10. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that this case be also disposed of in the same terms as passed passed in F.A. No.596 of 2014 and other analogous cases which in turn has been followed in F.A. No.48 of 2024. He has also submitted that no formal admission is required in this case as the case is fully covered. 11. The learned counsels for the parties have jointly submitted that arising out of the same impugned judgment passed by learned court and in relation to the same village arising out of the same notification for acquisition of lands, this Court has decided other appeals being First Appeal No.48 of 2024 and other analogous cases vide judgment dated 16.09.2025. 12. The learned counsels have jointly submitted that this appeal is also squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court and this appeal be also disposed of in the said terms. It is not in dispute that the present case arises out of batch of cases which were decided analogously by the learned trial court. The present case arises out of LAR Case No.455 of 2012 arising out of Land Acquisition Record No.6 of 2005-06. A batch of cases arising out of the same impugned judgement with respect to number of L.R. cases has been decided in different appeals filed by the present appellant where the appeals were allowed and the rate of compensation was reduced from Rs.3,238/- per decimal to Rs.2,403.67/- per decimal. 13. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is disposed of in terms of the judgment passed in F.A. No.596 of 2014 and other analogous cases which in turn has been followed in F.A. No. 48 of 2024. 14. This Court is of the considered view that this case is squarely covered by the judgement passed in the case of First Appeal No.596 of 2014 and other analogous cases arising out of the same acquisition process with respect to Village Topa where large area of 116.54 acres were acquired at a time. Accordingly, this first appeal is also allowed 2026:JHHC:17781 4 in the same terms as the First Appeal No.596 of 2014 and other analogous cases by reducing the rate of compensation from Rs.3,238/- per decimal to Rs. 2,403.67/- per decimal. So far as the other components of the award is concerned, they are required to be recalculated on the basis of the reduced compensation per decimal as mentioned above. 15. There shall be no order as to cost. 16. Office is to prepare decree accordingly. 17. Pending I.A., if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 18. Let a copy of this judgment and also the appellate decree be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 17.06.2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded On:-29.06.2026