2026:JHHC:25041 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.6149 of 2026 Ramdhan Lohar, aged about 37 years, Son of Late Suresh Lohar, resident of Village Basdiha, P.O. Lohandia Bazar, P.S. - Lalmatia, District - Godda (Jharkhand). …………Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, Through its Chief Secretary, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.& P.S.- Dhurwa, Ranchi-834004. 2. Deputy Commissioner, P.O.& P.S.- Godda, District- Godda, Jharkhand. 3. Circle Officer, Lalmatia Circle, P.O. & P.S.- Boarijor, District Godda. 4. Eastern Coalfields Limited, through its Chairman -cum-Managing Director, Sanctoria, P.O. and P.S.- Dishergarh, District Paschim Bardhaman, West Bengal. 5. Area General Manager, Rajmahal Project, Eastern Coalfields Limited, Dhankunda, P.O.- Br. Simra, P.S.- Lalmatia, District Godda. 6. General Manager (Operation), Rajmahal Project, Eastern Coalfields Limited, Dhankunda, P.O.- Br. Simra, P.S.- Lalmatia, District Godda. 7. Head of Department (L&DA), Rajmahal Project, Eastern Coalfields Limited, Dhankunda, P.O.- Br. Simra, P.S.- Lalmatia, District Godda. 8. Shahnawaz Khan, son of Amin Sheikh, Junior Engineer (Civil), Member of Measurement Committee, Rajmahal Project, Eastern Coalfields Limited, Dhankunda, P.O.- Br. Simra, P.S.- Lalmatia, District Godda 9. Munna Pandit, Son of Ram Kishun Pandit, Surveyor, Member of Measurement Committee, Rajmahal Project, Eastern Coalfields Limited, Dhankunda, P.O.- Br. Simra, P.S.- Lalmatia, District Godda. 10. Aasman Lohar, Son of Late Suresh Lohar, Employee of Rajmahal Project bearing Employee ID/Man No. 136813 and currently residing at ECL Quarter no. 280/818 NHS, Double story building, PO and PS- Mahagama, District - Godda (Jharkhand). 11. Jairam Lohar, Son of Late Suresh Lohar, Employee of Rajmahal Project bearing Employee ID/Man No. 134352 and currently residing at ECL Quarter no. 529, Building no. 244 NHS, Double story building, Po and P.S.- Mahagama, District - Godda (Jharkhand). 2026:JHHC:25041 2 12. Karuna Devi, Daughter of Late Suresh Lohar, Residing at Jatakothi, PO and PS - Lalmatia, District- Godda, Jharkhand. ………… Respondents CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Avilash Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Rajesh Lala, Advocate …...... 03 /18.08.2026: By way of filing this writ petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs :- i. That the petitioners prays for issuance of a writ/order/direction, particularly in the nature of Mandamus, commanding upon the Respondents, specially Respondent No. 5 to 9, to produce the entire records pertaining to the residential structure of the petitioner bearing House No. 301, JB No. 34, Dag/Plot No. 229 as well as land pertaining to Mouza no. 47, Jamabandi no. 34, total area 1 Bigha 16 Kattha 13 Dhoor and pay the entire compensation pertaining to the residential structure of the petitioner bearing House No. 301, JB No. 34, Dag/Plot No. 229 as well as payment of compensation with respect to land pertaining to Mouza no. 47, Jamabandi no. 34, total area 1 Bigha 16 Kattha 13 Dhoor, both properties situated at Village Basdiha, P.O. Lohandia Bazar, P.S. Lalmatia, District Godda by enhancing the compensation and accordingly make payment of revised and lawful compensation with interest to the petitioner at current applicable rates especially in accordance with The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act- 2013 or Coal Bearing Act, 1957 as deliberately inadequate compensation has been paid to the petitioner by the respondent no. 5 to 9 in connivance with the respondent no. 10 and 11. ii. The petitioner further prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to recover the compensation amount wrongly paid to the Respondent Nos. 10 and 11, who are presently working as employees of Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL) having Employee ID/Man No. 136813 of respondent no. 10 and Employee ID/Man No. 134352 of respondent no. 11, by making appropriate recovery from their salary or other service benefits in accordance with law, and thereafter release the said amount in favour of the petitioner, who is the lawful person entitled to receive the compensation. The petitioner is the rightful claimant to the entire compensation pertaining to the residential structure bearing House No. 301, JB No. 34, Dag/Plot No. 229, as well as the compensation in respect of the land situated at Mouza No. 47, Jamabandi No. 34, measuring 1 Bigha 16 Kattha 13 Dhoor, Village Basdiha, P.O. Lohandia Bazar, P.S. Lalmatia, District Godda, having inherited the same after giving the lawful share of Respondent Nos. 10 and 11. iii. Further the petitioners prays for stay on any coercive action including demolition or eviction of the petitioners from the said residential structure until lawful payment of compensation is not made to the petitioner in view of the fact that the respondents no. 10 and 11 are working in the ECL and they in connivance with the officials of ECL have managed to get wrongful entry of House no. 1296 and 1321 which is already a part of House no. 301. 2026:JHHC:25041 3 iv. Petitioner further prays for imposing pecuniary cost of Rs. 5,00,000/- lakhs upon the respondent no. 5 to 9 for knowingly and deliberately demolishing the house of the petitioner and destroying the household articles kept inside the house pertaining to the residential structure bearing House No. 301, JB No. 34, Dag/Plot No. 229 as no demolition notice was served upon the petitioner.” 2. The petitioner claims ownership and possession over House No. 301, JB No. 34, Dag/Plot No. 229 and land measuring 1 Bigha 16 Kattha 13 Dhoor at Mouja No. 47, Jamabandi No. 34 Village Basdiha, District Godda, which he claims to have inherited after partition amongst the siblings. Respondent Nos. 10 and 11 are the petitioner’s brothers, and the family properties had allegedly been partitioned and the parties living separately in their respective shares. In 2018, when the land was being acquired by Respondent Nos. 5 to 9 for mining purposes, Respondent No. 10 allegedly requested the petitioner to relinquish his share in the acquired land so that Respondent No. 10 could obtain compensation and employment with ECL. The petitioner alleges that he agreed to relinquish his share on the understanding that Respondent No. 10 would give him the entire compensation of ₹25 lakhs and his share in House No. 301. However, only ₹1,86,055/- was initially paid towards the acquired land. Subsequently, amounts of ₹4,91,008/- and ₹2,55,986/- were allegedly transferred to the petitioner, but according to him, the balance/remaining compensation was never paid. The petitioner further alleges that during measurement of the residential structure, Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 wrongly created House Nos. 1296 and 1321 in the names of Respondent Nos. 10 and 11, thereby reducing the petitioner’s entitlement to compensation. The petitioner submitted an application dated 13.06.2026 seeking clarification regarding House Nos. 301, 1296 and 1321. He alleges that instead of deciding the representation, the authorities demolished House Nos. 1296 and 1321 on 01.07.2026 without prior notice, causing alleged loss of household articles worth ₹5 lakhs. The petitioner claims that the demolition notice dated 12.06.2026 was received only on 03.07.2026, i.e. after the demolition had already taken place. By letter dated 04.07.2026, the respondents subsequently stated that House Nos. 1296 and 1321 formed 2026:JHHC:25041 4 part of House No. 301. The petitioner alleges that this was contradictory to the earlier records and was an attempt to justify the demolition. The petitioner therefore challenges the alleged incorrect measurement and award, seeks reassessment and payment of lawful compensation, recovery of amounts allegedly paid to Respondent Nos. 10 and 11, protection against further demolition, and compensation of ₹5 lakhs for the alleged destruction of household articles. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is lawful person, who is entitled to compensation in respect of the acquired land and residential structure and respondents have failed to determine his entitlement on the basis of the actual family partition and existing records. He submits that the measurement of House No. 301 was deliberately reduced and House Nos.1296 and 1321 were wrongly recorded separately and subsequently treated as part of House No.301, resulting in substantial reduction of petitioner’s compensation. He further alleged mala fide conduct on the part of the concerned officials and manipulation of measurement records, which resulted in wrongful assessment of compensation. He assailed the demolition dated 01.07.2026 and submits that the same is arbitrary and violative of principle of natural justice, since according to the petitioner, his representation dated 13.06.2026 was not decided and the demolition notice was received only after demolition. He further submits that respondents could not have unilaterally determined the petitioner’s rights on the basis of alleged statements of his family members without giving him notice or an opportunity of hearing. He further seeks correction of measurement, reassessment and payment of compensation, recovery of amounts allegedly paid to his brothers, and protection against further demolition. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submit that petitioner’s claims involve disputed questions of title, partition, entitlement and distribution of compensation, which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The demolition was undertaken pursuant to the acquisition proceedings and following due process of 2026:JHHC:25041 5 law. He submits that petitioner has an appropriate statutory remedy for challenging the measurement, award and quantum of compensation and, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. 5. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner seeks, inter alia, reassessment of compensation in respect of the acquired land and residential structure, correction of the alleged erroneous measurements, recovery of compensation allegedly paid to Respondent Nos.10 and 11, and protection against further demolition. 6. The principal grievance of the petitioner arises out of the alleged family partition, relinquishment of his share in favour of respondent No.10, entitlement to compensation and correctness of the measurement. These issues involve disputed questions of fact relating to title, partition, possession, measurement and entitlement to compensation. The dispute is between the siblings, which cannot be decided in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7. From the facts of this case, I find that there are many disputed question which needs to be adjudicated. These facts need leading of evidence to substantiate the claim. This Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot undertake a detailed adjudication of disputed question of facts, particularly where the petitioner’s claim is founded substantially upon an alleged understanding between family members regarding relinquishment of share and payment of compensation. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. 9. It is, however, made clear that dismissal of the present writ petition shall not preclude the petitioner from pursuing any remedy available to him before the appropriate Civil Court in accordance with law. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 18th August, 2026 R.S./ Uploaded on 20/08/2026