2026:JHHC:24211 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P(C) No. 6139 of 2026 1. Raj Kumar Karmali, son of Late Pryag Karmali, R/o Village-Charhi, Shyam Patti, P.O. & P.S.-Charhi, Dist.-Hazaribagh, Jharkhand 2. Gopal Karmali, son of Late Prayag Karmali, R/o Village-Charhi, Shyam Patti, P.O. & P.S.-Charhi, Dist.-Hazaribagh, Jharkhand .... Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O. & P.S.-Kutchery, Dist.-Ranchi 3. The General Manager (Land & Revenue), Central Coalfields Limited, having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O. & P.S.-Kutchery, Dist.-Ranchi 4. The General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Hazaribagh Area, having its office at P.O., P.S. & Dist.-Hazaribagh 5. The Project Officer, Jharkhand Laiyo OCP, Ramgarh Area, Central Coalfields Limited, having its office at P.O.-Kedla, P.S.-Kedla, Dist.-Ramgarh 6. The Circle Officer, Mandu, Ramgarh, Jharkhand. … Respondent(s). …… CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akhouri Sankalp, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shivam Singh, AC to SC-II For the CCL : Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate …...... 02/ 13.08.2026: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. It is grievance of the petitioners that though the land has been acquired under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Amendment Act, 1957 yet no compensation has been paid to the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent- Coal Company is disputing the ownership of the land of the petitioners. 4. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- CCL submits that there are diverge claims, thus it is not possible decided the same in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that remedies are available to the petitioners under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Amendment Act, 1957 to approach the Tribunal in terms of Sections 14 and 17 of the Act. 5. Considering the said submission, since there are an alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioners and more so, the grievance of the petitioners cannot be redressed in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as for redressal of grievance, it is necessary to record evidence and further the facts are disputed and complicated, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. The petitioners are at liberty to approach the Tribunal. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 13th August, 2026 R.S./S.K.C Uploaded on 14/08/2026