2026:JHHC:26209 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 518 of 2015 ------ 1. Basudeo Prasad Rai 2. Anil Kumar Rai Sl. Nos.1 and 2, both are sons of Late Babudhan Rai 3. Arbind Rai, son of Late Mukhdeo Prasad Rai All are residents of Village Raidih, P.O. and P.S. Jasidih, District Deoghar, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Department of Land Ceiling, Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, P.O., P.S. and District Deoghar 4. The Collector, Deoghar, P.O., P.S. and District Deoghar 5. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Deoghar P.O., P.S. and District Deoghar 6. The Director, Land Acquisition Revenue and Land Rehabilitation Development Department, Project Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners : Ms. Indrani Sen Choudhury, Sr. Advocate Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate Ms. Ishani Sen, Advocate Mr. Satyanshu Shubham, Advocate For the State : Ms. Shalini Shahdeo, A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-I ------ 11/31.08.2026 This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for declaring that the land acquisition proceeding initiated by respondent no.5 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in L.A. Case No.16/1988-89 relating to acquisition of 6.71 acres of land situated in Plot No.618 within Zamabandi No.15 of Mouza Raidih No.122, P.S. Jasidih in the District Deoghar recorded in the name of the ancestors of the petitioners to have been lapsed by legal fiction under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act and prayer has also been made to pay the compensation alternatively. 2. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners are still in possession and the land has not been taken by the authority concerned. She also submits that nothing has been done on the land of the petitioners till date and in view of that proper order 2026:JHHC:26209 2 W.P. (C) No. 518 of 2015 may kindly be passed. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that averment is made in the counter affidavit that the land was already handed over to the Requisitioning Officer in the year 1994. She also submits that in the light of Annexure 7 of the writ petition, the petitioners have been called upon with certain documents, however, the petitioners have not gone there. 4. In view of the above and without going into the merit of the case and considering the Annexure 7 by which the petitioners have been called to satisfy the concerned officer, this writ petition is being disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the respondent no.5 and satisfy the contentions made in the writ petition within a period of three weeks. 5. In the light of the above, the petitioners are directed to move before the respondent no.5 and comply the requirement in the light of Annexure 7 within a period of three weeks. If the petitioners are going there, the respondent no.5 shall consider the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks thereafter. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 31.08.2026 Anit Uploaded 02.09.2026