( 2026:JHHC:20588 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No. 53 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) … … Appellant Versus 1. Tilak Ravidas, S/o Late Harkhu Chamar(deleted and substituted vide order dated 10.07.2026) 1.(i) Manki Devi, wife of Late Tilak Ravidas, resident of Village Topa Basti, Harijan Tola, Near Kanta Ghar, PO & PS Mandu, Pindra, Rabodh, District- Ramgarh (Jharkhand). 1(ii)Uma Devi, daughter of Late Tilak Ravidas and wife of Shiv Sagar, resident of Khuddi, PO Pachkohra, PS & District - Hardoi (Uttar Pradesh) - 241001. iii. Radha Devi, daughter of Late Tilak Ravidas and wife of Mukesh Ravidas, resident of Village – Hosir Pashchimi, PO-Hosir, PS - Gomia, District - Bokaro (Jharkhand) -829111. 1(iv) Manju Devi, daughter of Late Tilak Ravidas and wife of Sanjeev Ghuran Purwa, GuraiPurwa Peng, PO Chachrapur, Hardoi Sandi, PS & District - Hardoi (Uttar Pradesh)-241403 1(V) Fulo Devi, daughter of Late Tilak Ravidas and wife of Dupi Ravidas, resident of Village Hosir Pashchimi, Miyabandh Gram, PO Hosir, PS Gomia, District Bokaro (Jharkhand) - 829111. 1(vi) Anita Kumari, daughter of Late Tilak Ravidas, resident of Village - Topa Basti, Harijan Tola, Near Karbala, PO & PS Mandu, Pindra, Rabodh, District - Ramgarh (Jharkhand) 1(vii) Yasoda Kumari, (minor) daughter of Late Tilak Ravidas, resident of Village Topa Pasti, Harijan Tola, Near Karbala, PO & PS Mandu, Pindra, Rabodh, District-Ramgarh (Jharkhand). 2. Mahendra Ravidas, S/o Late Harkhu Chamar 3. Suresh Ravidas, S/o Late Harkhu chamar 4. Dilip Ravidas, S/o Late Khedu Ravidas 5. Binay, S/o Late Khedu Ravidsas (deleted and substitutedv.o.d. 10.07.2026) 5(i) Dilip Ravidas, son of late Khedu Ravidas and brother of Late Binay Ravidas, resident of village-Topa Basti, PO and PS-Mandu, District-Ramgarh (Jharkhand) 6. Sahodari Devi, W/o Late Dahdeo Ravidas 7. Soni Kumari, D/o Sahdeo Ravidas 8. Rinki Kumari, D/o Late Sahdeo Ravidas 9. Shilpa Kumar, D/o Late Sahdeo Ravidas 10. Laldeo Ravidas, S/o Late Bablu Ravidas 11. Mahadeo Ravidas, S/o Late Bablu Ravidas 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 --- ( 2026:JHHC:20588 ) 2 CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellants :Mr. Kanishka Deo, AC to Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Sr. Advocate Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Varun Prabhakar, AC to GP-III Mr. Mukul Kumar Singh, AC to G.P.-III For the Pvt. Respondent : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate I.A. No. 14894 of 2025 21 /10.07. 2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. This interlocutory application has been filed for deleting the name of respondent No. 1 and 5 and for substituting their legal heirs. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the service of notice upon the legal heirs of respondent No.1 and 5 is complete. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that he has entered his appearance on behalf of the proposed legal heirs and successors for respondent No. 1 and 5 and he has no objection for the prayer for substitution. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the prayer for substitution of respondent No. 1 and 5 is hereby allowed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to delete the name of respondent no. 1 and 5 and insert the name of legal heirs and successors of these respondents in red ink during course of the day. 7. I.A. No. 14894 of 2025 stands disposed of. I.A. No. 3068 of 2025 8. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is a delay of 501 days in filing the appeal. He has submitted that a batch of appeals by decided in First Appeal No. 48 of 2024 and in that case also, the delay was condoned that same extent. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that earlier the petition was filed for condonation of delay of 264 days and subsequently a supplementary affidavit has also been filed explaining the delay of 501 days. ( 2026:JHHC:20588 ) 3 10. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection so far as prayer for condonation of delay is concerned. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and being satisfied with the cause shown and the fact that arising out of the same L.A.R. No. 06 of 2005-06, batch of cases have been disposed of by this Court after condoning the delay, the prayer for condonation of delay is allowed. 12. I.A. No. 3068 of 2025 is allowed. F.A. No. 53 of 2024 13. With the consent of the parties the case is taken up on merits. 14. This First Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 28th July, 2022 (Decree signed on 10th August, 2022) vide Award No. 42 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-II- cum-Land Acquisition Judge, Ramgarh in L.A.R. Case No. 463 of 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 along with interest. 15. The learned counsel for the appellant 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. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. The learned counsels have jointly submitted that this appeal is also squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court and this ( 2026:JHHC:20588 ) 4 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.463 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. 19. 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. 20. 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 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. 21. There shall be no order as to cost. 22. Office is to prepare decree accordingly. 23. Pending I.A., if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 24. 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.) Dated: 10.07.2026 Pramanik/ Binit Uploaded on 13.07.2026