Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:25747-DB) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No.475 of 2026 ----- Gopi Sahu, son of Late Raghunath Sahu, resident of Argora Basti, Kathal More Road, P.O. Doranda, now within P.O. Argora, P.S. Argora, District-Ranchi within State of Jharkhand .......... Appellant. -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 2. District Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi. 3. Circle Officer, Argora. 4. Baij Nath Sahu @ Baji Nath Sahu 5. Mani Nath Sahu 6. Shiv Ratan Sahu Nos.4 to 6 are sons of Late Harkh Nath Sahu, resident of Argora, Kathal More Road, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Argora, District-Ranchi. 7. Shiv Shankar Sahu. 8. Manu Ram Kashyap. Nos.7 and 8 are sons of Late Govind Sahu, residents of village-Argora Basti, Kathal More Road, P.O. Doranda, District-Ranchi. 9. Satya Narayan Kumar. 10. Krishna Kumar. Nos.9 and 10 are sons of Late Vishnu Ram, residents of village-Argora Basti, Kathal More Road, P.O. Doranda, District-Ranchi. .......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Appellant : Mr. Manoranjan N. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Dilip Kr. Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, AC to AAG-III ----- Order No.02 Date: 27.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Manoranjan Nath Sinha, who appears with Mr. Dilip Kumar Prasad for the appellant and Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, learned A.C. to A.A.G.-III for the State. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal challenges the learned Single Judge’s order dated 29th June, 2026, disposing of W.P.(C) No.4469 of 2026. Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:25747-DB) 3. Mr Sinha, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that no notice was issued and consequently the appellant (who was impleaded as the 4th respondent in W.P.(C) No.4469 of 2026) was not heard before the impugned order was made. He submitted that the impugned order prejudices the appellant herein. 4. Without prejudice, Mr Sinha submits that the dispute raised by the original petitioners in W.P.(C) No.4469 of 2026 was barred by limitation and the compensation was correctly awarded to the appellant herein. 5. Mr Sinha, in support of his submissions, relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bassamma and Another vs Goparappa and Others, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1342. 6. For the above reasons, Mr Sinha submits that the impugned order warrants interference. 7. In this case, the original petitioners had claimed that they are entitled to get a part of the compensation, which was entirely paid to the present appellant. They also claimed that they approached the Collector to decide the dispute of apportionment. Their complaint was that the Collector has not taken any decision on their application(s) raising a dispute and seeking apportionment in terms of Section 76 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short ‘2013 Act’). Accordingly, the original petitioners sought a direction to the Collector to simply dispose of their application. Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:25747-DB) 8. Considering the prayer made, the learned single Judge, by the impugned order, directed the following in paragraph no.4: - “4. Considering the limited prayer from the petitioners, I direct the petitioners to approach the Collector along with the copy of this order who after hearing all the parties concerned including the persons who have received the amount, will take an appropriate decision in terms of Section 76 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act preferably within 16 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The decision which will be taken should be communicate to the parties.” 9. Since the only direction given by the learned Single Judge to the Collector is to dispose of the original petitioners’ application raising dispute of apportionment and to take an appropriate decision in terms of Section 76 of the 2013 Act, we do not think that any prejudice is caused to the present appellant. This is more so because the learned single Judge, by the impugned order, has specifically directed the Collector to hear all the parties concerned, including the parties who have received the amount, before any such decision under Section 76 of the 2013 Act is taken and communicated to the parties. 10. The contentions about bar of limitation or the contentions based on Section 24 of the 2013 Act or any other contentions that the appellant wishes to raise have not been foreclosed. The appellant is permitted to raise all such contentions, including the contentions now raised in this petition before the Collector. 11. The Collector was not justified in failing to decide the original petitioners’ application for action under Section 76 of the 2013 Act. In these circumstances, time-bound directions were given to dispose of the original petitioners’ application by hearing all the parties, which would include the appellant herein. Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:25747-DB) 12. In Bassamma (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated that the principles of natural justice must be followed before any party is prejudiced. That was in a case where the findings in the impugned judgment relating to ownership, possession, and the appellant's rights were challenged in a writ petition. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that such findings could not be interfered with, without the party in whose favour such findings were made being given an effective opportunity to defend the same. 13. The fact-situation in the present case is not comparable. The directions given in the impugned order ensure that the present appellant would be duly heard by the appropriate authority. In any event, we have also clarified this in this order. 14. Accordingly, we see no good ground to interfere with the learned single Judge’s order, particularly now that we have reiterated that the appellant should be heard by the Collector and further, all contentions of the appellant are left open to be raised before the Collector. 15. The appeal is accordingly disposed of without any order for costs. 16. Pending I.A., if any, is also disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 27th August, 2026 Sanjay/Rohit Uploaded on 31.08.2026