2026:JHHC:25264 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 5536 of 2026 ----- 1. Manjur Ansari, Son of Nousad Ansari, Resident of Village -Basdiha, P.O. Lohandia Bazar, P.S. Lalmatia, District - Godda, Jharkhand. 2. Majrul Ansari, Son of Manjur Ansari, Resident of Village Basdiha, P.O. Lohandia Bazar, P.S. Lalmatia, District Godda, Jharkhand. 3. Najrul Ansari, Son of Manjur Ansari, Resident of Village Basdiha, P.O. Lohandiya Bazar, P.S. Lalmatia, District Godda, Jharkhand. 4. Naim Ansari, Son of Manjur Ansari, Resident of Village Basdiha, P.O. Lohandiya Bazar, P.S. Lalmatia, District Godda, Jharkhand. ……… Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, Through its Chief Secretary, Project Building, P.O.& P.S.-, Dhurwa, Ranchi 834004. 2. Deputy Commissioner, District -Godda, P.O. & P.S. – Godda, Jharkhand. 3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahagama, P.O. & P.S.- Mahagama, District Godda. 4. Circle Officer, Lalmatia Circle, P.O. & P.S.-Lalmatia, District Godda. 5. Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL), Through Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Sanctoria, P.O. - Dishergarh, P.S.-Salampur, Dist-Paschim Bardhaman, West Bengal. 6. Area General Manager, Rajmahal Area, Eastern Coalfields Limited, Dhankunda, P.O. & P.S.-Lalmatia, District - Godda. 7. General Manager (Operation), Rajmahal Project, Eastern Coalfields Limited, Dhankunda, P.O. - Br. Simra, P.S. Mahagama, District- Godda. 8. Head of Department (L&DA), Rajmahal Project, Eastern Coalfields Limited, Dhankunda, District Godda. 9. Parmeshwar Yadav, Chief manager, Member of Measurement Committee, Rajmahal Project, Eastern Coalfields Limited, Dhankunda, P.O.-Br. Simra, P.S. Mahagama, District Godda. 10. Vipin Kumar, Deputy Manager, Member of Measurement Committee, Rajmahal Project, Eastern Coalfields Limited, Dhankunda, P.O.- Br. Simra, P.S.-Mahagama, District Godda. 11. Pawan Mahto, Assistant Revenue Inspector, Member of Measurement, Committee, Rajmahal Project, Eastern Coalfields Limited, Dhankunda, P.O-Br. Simra, P.S. Mahagama, District Godda. 12. Avinash Patel, Overseer, Member of Measurement Committee, Rajmahal Project, Eastern Coalfields Limited, Dhankunda, P.O.- Br. Simra, P.S.- Mahagama, District Godda. 13. Sahnawaz Sheikh @ Shahnawaz Khan, son of Amin Sheikh, Junior Engineer (Civil), Member of Measurement Committee, Rajmahal Project, Eastern Coalfields Limited, Dhankunda, P.Ο.-Br. Simra, P.S.- Mahagama, District Godda. 14. Munna Pandit, Son of Ram Kishun Pandit, Surveyor, Member of Measurement Committee, Rajmahal Project, Eastern Coalfields Limited, Dhankunda, P.O.- Br. Simra, P.S. -Mahagama, District Godda. .......... Respondents. 2026:JHHC:25264 2 ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Avilash Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Chaban Tiwari, AC to GA For the Respondent-ECL : Mr. Rajesh Lala, AC to GP-II ------ 03/17.08.2026 Heard the parties. 2. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs: - (a) for issuance of an appropriate Certiorari to quash and set aside illegal recovery of demands raised vide letter no. 771, 772, 773 and 774 dated 17.09.2024 issued by the respondent no. 8 as well as reminder letter dated 27.07.2025 issued by the respondent no. 7, against the petitioners with respect to alleged excess compensation received by petitioners pertaining to land bearing Khata No. 42, Dag/Plot No. 250, Mouza Basdiha, P.O. Lohandia Bazar, P.S.-Lalmatia, District Godda, State Jharkhand. And/or (b) Further direct the Respondents to call for entire records containing Measurement Chart, Award Copy and Compensation Disbursement pertaining to 42, land bearing Khata No. Dag/Plot No. 250, Mouza Basdiha, P.O. Lohandia Bazar, P.S. Lalmatia, District Godda, State-Jharkhand. And/or (c) The petitioners further pray to direct the respondents to refrain from taking any coercive steps against the petitioners as the petitioners are innocent and illiterate persons having no knowledge regarding any commission of any illegal act or offence which is being alleged to have been committed by the petitioners. And/or (d) The petitioners further pray to direct the respondents for payment of pecuniary cost of Rs. 1,00,000/-towards harassment and litigation cost which has been accrued due to highhandedness of the respondent no. 5 to 8. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that they are displaced villagers whose residential houses and land bearing Khata No. 42, Dag/Plot No.250, Mouza Basdiha, P.O.- Lohandia, Bazar, P.S. Lalmatia, District Godda, measuring approximately 1 Bigha 3 Katha 4 Dhur out of which only 11 katha 12 dhur were acquired for mining purpose under Rajmahal Project. Prior to disbursement of compensation, a Physical Verification Committee constituted by the respondent authorities visited the site multiple times and verified the existence of four residential houses, and thereafter compensation was paid. Thereafter, the petitioners received recovery of 2026:JHHC:25264 3 demands raised vide letter no. 771, 772, 773 and 774 dated 17.09.2024 issued by the respondent no. 8 as well as reminder letter dated 27.07.2025 issued by the respondent no. 7, whereby the petitioners were directed to return the excess compensation of Rs.14,40,039/- (in total) pertaining to houses situated over the land of Mouza Basdiha, Khata No. 42, Dag/Plot No. 250. Further, written objection and reply dated 01.09.2025 was submitted by the petitioners but the respondents have not supplied any reason for aforesaid impugned demand recovery notices. As per them there is no reason to issue the notice nor any reason to ask for refund. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the present matter cannot be decided in the writ jurisdiction as it involve the disputed question of facts and oral as well as the documentary evidence are necessary to ascertain the claim of the petitioners. 5. After hearing the parties and perusing the record, I find that in the impugned notices, it is stated that during the investigation, it was found that the total area of Plot No. 250 is 0.3834 acres, while the total built-up area of all 12 houses is 0.5047 acres. Thus, under no circumstances can the total area of the house exceed the total area of the land of the plot. This is a disputed question of facts and it requires to examine the documentary as well as oral evidence to assess the actual existence of number of houses upon which the compensation was assessed and the area of the land. 6. Considering the disputes which involved here in this case, the same cannot be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution. Thus, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Pending Interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of 8. It will be open to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of their grievances, in accordance with law. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 17th August, 2026 Anu/Cp2. Uploaded on: 24/08/2028