2026:JHHC:10833 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.4578 of 2019 Dhanush Dhari Saw, aged about 80 years S/o- Late Gokul Saw, R/o- Village + P.O. Rasoiya Dhamna, P.S.-Barhi, District-Hazaribag, Jharkhand. …. Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag, P.O.-Hazaribag, P.S.-Sadar, District-Hazaribag. 3. Additional Collector, Hazaribag, P.O.-Hazaribag, P.S.-Sadar, District- Hazaribag. 4. Circle Officer, Hazaribag, P.O.-Hazaribag, P.S.-Sadar, District- Hazaribag. … Respondent(s) -------- CORAM: SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parth Jalan, Advocate Mr. Madhav Prasad, Advocate For the R. State : Mr. Ankit Kumar, AC to GP-VI ------ 2/16.04.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner in this writ petition prays for quashing of the order dated 18.06.2019 (Annexure-11), passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag in Miscellaneous Case No. 05/2019, whereby the learned Authority has upheld the order passed by the Additional Collector by refusing to accept the representation of the Petitioner made before him for granting him the raiyoti status, in terms of the order dated 28.02.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No. 975/2016 by a coordinate Bench of this Court. 3. The Petitioner further prays for to hold & declare that the right of the Petitioner over the land measuring an area of 3.76 acres Acres (2.86 acres within Khata No. 152, Plot No. 129/19 & 129/30, further within plot no.1706/08 -.59 acres & Plot no.4949.31 acres, Village- Dhamna) & to confer raiyoti status on 0.65 acres of land was 2026:JHHC:10833 2 acquired within plot no.129/19 for the purpose of awarding compensation and to direct authorities to grant fair compensation to the petitioner for acquisition of his 0.65 acres of land, which erroneously considered as Gair-Mazaruwa by the authorities. 4. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Raiyoti Approval Certificate (Raiyoti Manyata Praman Patra) has not been issued to the petitioner in spite of the report that the petitioner is holding the land as raiyoti. He further submits that the petitioner has paid the regular rent for the land in question as the land was settled in his favour in Bhoodan Yagya Samiti. He further submits that without considering the report, the impugned order has been passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner. 5. Counsel appearing for the State submits that after proper inquiry, it was found that the petitioner was not in possession of the land. The petitioner is claiming the title on the basis of the settlement of the land by Bhoodan Yagya Samiti, which is an illegal settlement. The nature of the land is Gair Mazarua Khas and the Bhoodan Yagya Samiti does not have any right to settle the Gair Mazarua Khas land. 6. After hearing the parties, I find that the land, which the petitioner is claiming to be raiyati, was acquired for the purpose of construction of National Highway. The petitioner is claiming compensation, but the same was not paid on the ground that the raiyati manyata praman patra was not issued by the respondents. The petitioner applied for the same, but the same was ultimately rejected on the ground that Form-M was not available and the land is 2026:JHHC:10833 3 Gair Mazarua Khas land. In the counter affidavit, the respondent has taken additional plea that the land could not be settled by Bhoodan Yagya Samiti as the nature of the land is Gair Mazarua Khas. The State has also doubted the settlement deed as forged and false document. 7. Considering the statements of the parties, I find that there is dispute with regard to the title of the petitioner to get the compensation in view of the acquisition. The petitioner has to prove that he is a raiyati of the land in question and how the land was legally settled in his favour. Since there is a doubt, the petitioner, needs to be heard for the declaration of the right, title and possession of the land by filing the Title Suit, which can only be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court, considering the disputed question of facts, which needs to be proved by oral and documentary evidence. Thus, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move before the competent Civil Court for confirmation / declaration of the right title and possession over the land in question. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 16.04.2026 R.Kumar Uploaded on 18.04.2026