Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 24767 (JHR)

RANJANA JAISWAL v. STATE OF JHARKHAND

WPC/1821/2018 · 2026-08-31

Sri Ananda Sen

Writ Petition (Civil)body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:26143 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 1821 of 2018 ----- Ranjana Jaiswal, wife of Binod Kumar, resident of 2K/ 43, Bariatu Housing Colony, PO Bariatu, PS Bariatu, District Ranchi. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Secretary, Land Revenue Department, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, PO Dhurwa, PS Jagarnathpur, Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, Smaharanalaya Block, DC Office, Ranchi, PO and PS Ranchi, Jharkhand, 834001. 4. Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi, Collectorate Building, Kutchery Road, Ranchi, PO and PS Ranchi, Jharkhand 834001. 5. Executive Engineer, Public Welfare Department (Ring Road), Dhurwa, PO Dhurwa and PS Jagarnathpur, Ranchi, Jharkhand. … … Respondents ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Advocate Mr. Subham Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Vishal Kumar Rai, AC to GA IV ---- 10/31.08.2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for the following reliefs: - (a) declaring that land acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1894) for acquisition of 27 acres of land of village Neori vide Land Acquisition Case No. 19/06-07 have lapsed in so far as the petitioner is concerned in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 2013”) (b) further writ/order/direction to pay compensation to the Petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013 as payment has been made and possession has been taken by the Respondents after the enforcement of aforesaid Act of 2013. 3. Petitioner was in possession of the lands measuring 27 decimals of land in Plot No.1891 within Khata No.29, Thana Sadar, Town and District Ranchi, which she had purchased vide registered 2026:JHHC:26143 -: 2 :- deed of sale dated 03.04.2007 and was duly mutated in her name. She had also constructed boundary wall and had constructed pucca room with RCC roof which was used as office for her business. On 10.04.2016 few State officials came along with JCB machines to demolish the boundary wall and the construction, however on protest by the staff of the petitioner, they did not proceed with the demolition and gave some time to vacate the premises. Petitioner, on enquiry, came to know that her lands have been acquired for construction of Ring Road. She came to know that on 21st May, 2007 the Land and Revenue Department had issued a notification regarding acquisition of lands in Mouza Neori, Thana No.45, PS Kanke, District Ranchi. Petitioner, vide letter dated 29.04.2016 and 23.06.2016 objected to such acquisition and that too without payment of appropriate compensation. Petitioner vide letter dated 15.06.2017 demanded compensation under the provisions of Act of 2013. Petitioner claims that her signature was obtained on a blank compensation form on 15.06.2017 on an assurance that compensation will given as per the Act of 2013. On enquiry, petitioner came to know that the compensation amount was very low. On 28.08.2017, petitioner again wrote a letter to the Land Acquisition Officer raising objection against the less compensation amount. The respondents on 16.10.2017, deposited a sum of Rs.6,05,141/- in the bank account of the petitioner in terms of the Act of 1894. The petitioner also referred to a letter dated 06.04.2016 issued by the Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi addressed to the Executive Engineer, Ranchi Ring Road, to show that the steps for obtaining possession of the land was taken only in the year 2016-17. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to Section 24 of the Act of 2013, submits that the respondent authorities continued the process of acquisition and have paid compensation in terms of the Act of 1894 when the said proceeding had already lapsed in terms of Section 24 of the Act of 2013. He contends that the petitioner is entitled to payment of compensation in terms of the provisions of the Act of 2013. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the claim of the petitioner for payment of compensation under the Act of 2013 is not sustainable in law inasmuch as the award for acquisition of land measuring 0.54 acre was prepared on the basis of the Act of 1894 and 2026:JHHC:26143 -: 3 :- compensation amount of Rs.7,91,838/- has been paid to the petitioner in two parts, i.e., Rs.6,05,141/- and Rs.1,86,697/- respectively in Land Acquisition Case No.16/2006-07. He submits that complying with Section 12 of the Act of 1894, the award was finalised in Land Acquisition Case No.16/06-07 and was finally published in Gazette on 21.05.2007. He further submits that the land in question was delivered and handed over to the requisition authority, i.e., Executive Engineer, Ranchi Ring Road, Road Division, Ranchi on 19.02.2008 and a certificate to this effect was issued by the District Collectorate, Ranchi as contained in Memo No.23(ii) dated 19.02.2008. Learned counsel contends that the writ petition has got no merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Considering the submissions of the respective parties and going through the records, I find that the main grievance of the petitioner is with regard to payment of compensation in lieu of acquisition of lands in Land Acquisition Case No.16/06-07 [at some places/documents it has been mentioned as Land Acquisition Case No.19/06-07]. This Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot delve into the issue of adequacy of compensation, moreso when the road has already been constructed after acquisition. Thus, I am not inclined to accede to the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner in this writ petition. However, the petitioner is given liberty to approach appropriate forum, if she wants enhancement of compensation. 7. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition stands disposed of. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Ananda Sen, J.) Ranchi Dated 31st August, 2026 Kumar/Cp-02 Uploaded on 01.09.2026