Page No.-1 2026:JHHC:22286 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 3317 of 2024 Chaita Mahto, son of late Prayag Mahto, resident of village Jaridih Basti, Gandhinagar, Bermo, P.O Jaridih, P.S. Gandhinagar, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand. .... Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary, Land and Revenue Department, Government of Jharkhand, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro. 4. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Bermo at Tenughat, Bokaro. 5. The Circle Officer, Bermo, Bokaro. 6. The General Manager (B&K), Karagali, Central Coal Field Limited, Bermo, Bokaro. . … Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, Advocate. For the State: M/s Rishi Bharati and Priyasha, AC. to AAG-III For CCL Mr. Karamdeo, Advocate. ------ 06/27.07.2026 Heard the parties. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 23.9.2022 (Annexure-9 Series), whereby respondent No. 5 has refused to issue verification authentication report for the land of the petitioner under Khata No. 132, Plot No. 221/5, area 4.16 Acre of Mauza- Bermo, which has been duly acquired by the Central Coalfield Limited (B&K) Karagali, Bermo, inspite of order dated 15.3.2019 passed by respondent No. 3 in Land Authentication Appeal No. 18/2017-18 as well as observation by this Court vide order dated 26.7.2022 passed in WP(C) No. 599 of 2022 and further prays for direction upon the concerned respondents to issue Verification/Authentication Report for the land in question in favour of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said land was settled by the then Ex-landlord by way of Hukumnama dated 30.4.1941 and thereafter the father of the petitioner came into possession and getting rent receipts after paying the rent to the Ex-landlord and after abolition of Zamindari, the State Authority issued rent receipts in favour of the father of the petitioner and opened jamabandi 145/1 (late on 134/3) in the name of his late father as raiyat. Since then the petitioner is in regular possession of the land in question. He further submits that the Circle Officer, Bermo by order dated 5.3.2016, on the basis of report of Halka Karamchari made requisition for initiation of proceeding under Section 4(h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and on the basis of order dated 5.3.2016 the Deputy Page No.-2 Collector land Reforms passed the order dated 21.2.2017 affirming the observations of the Circle officer, Bermo. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the Land Authentication Appeal No. 18/2017-18 against the order dated 21.2.2017 before the Court of Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro vide order dated 15.3.2019 set aside the order of the Deputy Collector land Reforms, Bermo in Land Authentication Case No. 119/2016 observing that a raiyati land after due opening of long jamabandi of 60 years cannot be cancelled on mere suspicion. He also adds that the said land has been duly acquired by CCL authorities but no benefit has been given to the petitioner by the CCL inspite of several representation given by the petitioner. He further submits that thereafter the petitioner preferred writ application vide WP(C) No. 1599 of 2022 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 26.7.2022 directing the petitioner to file fresh representation before respondent No. 5, to decide the matter. In compliance of the order dated 26.7.2022, the petitioner filed representation on 24.8.2022, but the respondent No. 5 disposed of the said representation vide order dated 23.9.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Cont. Case (Civil) No. 906 of 2022, which was disposed of vide order dated 3.5.2024. It is further submitted that respondent No. 5 passed the order refusing to issue verification report of the land in question in favour of the petitioner and only setting aside the proceeding initiated against the petitioner under Section 4(h) of BLR Act, 1950 however, he also held that the petitioner is in the real owner. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the land in question is recorded in survey Khatiyan as “Gair Majruwa Khas Kism Jungle” thus the said land never belongs to the petitioner or his father and also the said land could not be settled by the Ex-landlord by way of sada Hukumnama dated 30.4.1941. She further submits that the land verification cannot be again started if land verification case was previously complete. 5. After hearing the parties and perusing the entire record, I find that the petitioner filed the Land Authentication Appeal No. 18/2017-18 against the order dated 21.2.2017 before the Court of Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro vide order dated 15.3.2019 set aside the order of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Bermo in Land Authentication Case No. 119/2016 observing that a raiyati land after due opening of long jamabandi for 60 years cannot be cancelled on mere suspicion. 6. Admittedly, the said land was acquired by CCL authorities but no Page No.-3 benefit has been given to the petitioner by the CCL inspite of several representation given by the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner preferred writ application vide WP(C) No. 1599 of 2022 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 26.7.2022 directing the petitioner to file fresh representation before respondent No. 5. In compliance of the order dated 26.7.2022, the petitioner filed representation on 24.8.2022, but the respondent No. 5 disposed of the said representation vide order dated 23.9.2022, refusing to issue verification/authentication report of the land of the petitioner. 7. When I go through the order dated 23.9.2022, I find that the Circle Officer after discussing about the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner only considering the opinion of the Government Pleader that the authentication will amount to violating the order passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector refused the authentication of the land of the petitioner. There is no reason assigned in the said order as to why he refused the authentication. Further, no reasonable opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner while rejecting his prayer. When the Deputy Commissioner in Land Authentication Case No. 129/2016 has set aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, holding that the petitioner’s jamabandi is long standing which cannot be cancelled only on the basis of suspicion, the Circle Officer could not have passed order in contravention of order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. He should have abide by the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner while entertaining the representation filed by the petitioner and passing the order dated 23.9.2022. 8. Considering what has been held above, the order dated 23.9.2022 is set aside. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled for compensation in lieu of the land acquired by the Central Coalfields Limited, which will be disbursed to the petitioner as early as possible, preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 27th July, 2026 Anu/-CP-02 Uploaded on: 30/07/2026