Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:25472-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 466 of 2026 1. Nepul Kumar, Son of Rameshwar Saw, Aged about 25 years 2. Badal Kumar, Represented by his Father Ramdular Saw, aged About 17 years, 3. Rabindra Kumar, Son of Hiralal Saw, Aged about 28 years 4. Sikendra kumar Saw, Son of Premnath Saw, aged about 35 years. 5. Dinanath Kumar Saw, Son of Late Laldev Sao aged about 35 years 6. Kuleshwar Kumar Saw, Son of Indranath Saw, aged about 31 years 7. Bhagi Saw, Son of Kewal Sao, Aged about 56 years 8. Arun Kumar Saw, Son of late Raghunandan Saw, Aged about 34 years, 9. Bhagwat Sao, Son of late Bali Saw, Aged About 57 years 10. Sukesh Kumar, Son of late Ritlal Saw, Aged About 19 years All R/o Village:- Jugra Chepaklan Post: Chepakala P.S Barkagoan Distt. Hazaribag, Jharkhand. ……. Petitioners/Appellants Versus 1. The Union of India. 2. The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary of Revenue and Land Reforms Department, having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O & P.S- Dhurwa, Jharkhand. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag, having its office at Collectorate, PO & PS. Hazaribag, District-Hazaribag Jharkhand. 4. The Additional Collector Hazaribag, PO and PS Hazaribag, District- Hazaribag, Jharkhand. 5. The District Land Acquisition officer Hazaribag PO and PS Hazaribag District- Hazaribag. 6. The Chairman Cum Managing Director, National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd., NTPC Bhavan- Scope Complex Industrial Area Lodhi Road P.O & P.S Lodhi Road, New Delhi, Pin Code- 110003. 7. The General Manager N.T.P.C, Pakri Barwadih Coal Mining Project, P.O and P.S Barkagoan, District Hazaribag, Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:25472-DB 8. The Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Hazaribag, R/o New Forest Colony, P.O & P.S:- Hazaribag Jharkhand 825301 ... Respondents/Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Appellants: Mr Shresth Gautam, Advocate Mr Himanshu Harsh, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr Prashant Pallav, A.S.G.I. Mr Parth Jalan, A.C. to A.S.G.I. Mr Bajrang Kumar, A.C. to A.S.G.I. --------- 02/Dated: 24.08.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the interim order dated 24.09.2025 made by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) Filing No. 10457 of 2025. 3. Mr Shresth Gautam, the learned counsel for the appellants, submits that there is no “admitted amount” in this matter and therefore, there is no question of depositing the same or allowing the appellants to withdraw the same. He submits that the compensation must be determined in accordance with Section 14 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (said Act) and such compensation has never been determined. 4. Mr. Shresth Gautam submits that Section 14(1) of the said Act contemplates determination of compensation by an agreement in the first instance. He submits that no such agreement exists and none was even attempted. He submits that only if no agreement is Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:25472-DB reached, can there be determination of the compensation amount under the further sub-sections of Section 14 of the said Act. 5. Accordingly, Mr Shresth Gautam submits that in the above circumstances, the learned Single Judge should have protected the appellants from eviction until they are paid the compensation as determined by Section 14 of the said Act. 6. Mr Prashant Pallav, the learned Senior Advocate and A.S.G.I., who appears along with Mr Parth Jalan and Mr Bajrang Kumar for the respondents, submits that the compensation amount of approximately Rs. 73.00 Lakhs has been determined and deposited for payment to the petitioners and their agnates. He pointed out that the impugned order also grants the petitioners liberty to withdraw the same. 7. Mr Pallav referred to the prayers in the petition, including prayer clause (d), in which the appellants insist that compensation be determined by following the principles under the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act). In this context, the learned Single Judge directed the deposit of the compensation already determined. 8. Mr Pallav also submitted that in terms of the scheme of the said Act, the land in question has already vested with the Central Government, which has, in turn, allotted the same to the beneficiary, i.e., NTPC. Such land is required for mining of coal Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:25472-DB which is essential for the functioning of the NTPC. Accordingly, Mr Pallav submitted that there is no error in the impugned order that warrants interference from the appellate Court. 9. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 10. The appellants’ contention that there is no admitted amount as such must be considered in its proper perspective. From reading of the entire impugned order, it is evident that the learned Single Judge, by using the phrase “admitted amount”, meant the amount already determined or the amount admitted by the respondents as payable. The phrase does not mean that the appellants have admitted this amount to be ‘just and fair compensation’ in terms of the Act. 11. In their several prayers, the appellants have sought “re- computation” of the compensation amount or revision of the criteria for determining the compensation amount. The fact that the appellants prayed for “re-computation” or for the determination of compensation by following a particular provision or method implies that there is already some determination in place, which may or may not be agreeable to the appellants. 12. The issue of whether the compensation determined is correct or not would undoubtedly be considered in the petition or by the competent authority as may have been prescribed. However, the appellants cannot, before the writ court, continue to dispute the Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:25472-DB determined compensation and resist eviction from the acquired lands on such basis. 13. Mr Pallav, on instructions, states that the amount of Rs. 73.00 Lakhs determined in this matter has now been deposited. He clarified that this compensation is payable not only to the petitioners but also to the petitioners’ agnates, who, Mr Shresth Gautam submits, are all parties to these proceedings. 14. Mr Shresth Gautam submits that there was no attempt to determine compensation by agreement. Since, prima facie, it is the right of the appellants to receive compensation in accordance with law, it is still open to the appellants to reach an agreement with the respondents on the issue of compensation. If the appellants make an offer, we are sure that the respondents will also address it and see whether any agreement can be reached between the parties. However, pending negotiations on such agreement, the appellants cannot insist upon continuing in possession of the lands vested in the respondents. 15. The impugned order has balanced the equities and attempted to protect the rights and interests of both parties to the extent possible. The discretion has been exercised fairly, and no perversity or arbitrariness is involved. We detect no error in the impugned order to warrant interference in this appeal against a discretionary interim order. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:25472-DB 16. Accordingly, by leaving all the contentions of all parties open to be raised in W.P. (C) Filing No. 10457 of 2025, which is still pending, we dismiss this appeal. The observations, if any, in this order are also prima facie and for the purposes of deciding the issues raised in this appeal. Such observations need not influence the learned Single Judge while deciding the main writ petition in accordance with law. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) August 24, 2026 N.A.F.R. Manoj/Sharda/Cp.2 Uploaded on 25.08.2026