[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Raunak Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 December, 2025
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
2025:JHHC:36336
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.1211 of 2019
....
Raunak Ansari, aged about 45 years, son of Ashraful Ansari, resident of Anjuman
Mohalla, Lohardaga, P.O.+P.S.+District-Lohardaga .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary, Road Construction Department, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O.-
Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi
3. Deputy Collector, Lohardaga, P.O.+P.S.+District-Lohardaga
4. Executive Engineer, Road Construction and Winding Department, Lohardaga,
P.O.+P.S.+District-Lohardaga
5. Circle Officer, Lohardaga, P.O.+P.S.+District-Lohardaga .... Respondents
....
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Adv.
: Mr. Shubham Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Vishal Kr. Rai, AC to GA-IV
....
11/04.12.2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief:-
"For issuance of an appropriate writ/ writs, order/orders,
direction/directions upon the Respondents not to construct road over the
private land of the Petitioner though process/procedure for land
acquisition were done by the Respondents and no compensation was paid
to the Petitioner and more interesting no previous road in on the land of
the Petitioner."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta has
submitted that the State has constructed road in the year 2001-2002 and the
petitioner's land has neither been acquired nor compensation has been paid, thus
the action of the respondents-authorities is colourable exercise of power for which
the State must pay compensation to the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents/State has opposed the prayer and
submitted that in the counter-affidavit he has annexed the villager's representation.
The land was given by the villager in the year 2001-02 which was used as pagdandi
in initial stage. Subsequently in the year 2001-02, metallic road was prepared and
for that cause of action the petitioner after 18 years came before this Hon'ble Court.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents/State has relied upon the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Maqbool Ali vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2011) 15 SCC 383 para-12 of which may
be profitably be quoted hereunder:-
2025:JHHC:36336
"12. The High Courts should also be cautious in entertaining writ
petitions filed decades after the dispossession, seeking directions for
acquisition and payment of compensation. It is not uncommon for
villagers to offer/donate some part of their lands voluntarily for a public
purpose which would benefit them or the community as for example,
construction of an access road to the village or their property, or
construction of a village tank or a bund to prevent flooding/erosion.
When they offer their land for such public purpose, the land would be of
little or negligible value. But decades later, when land values increase,
either on account of passage of time or on account of developments or
improvements carried out by the State, the landholders come up with
belated claims alleging that their lands were taken without acquisition
and without their consent. When such claims are made after several
decades, the State would be at a disadvantage to contest the claim, as it
may not have the records to show in what circumstances the lands were
given/donated and whether the land was given voluntarily. Therefore,
belated writ petitions, without proper explanation for the delay, are
liable to be dismissed. Be that as it may."
5. Considering the same, in view of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Syed Maqbool Ali (supra), whereby it has been held that when
such claims are made after several decades, the State would be at a disadvantage to
contest the claim, as it may not have the records to show in what circumstances the
lands were given/donated and whether the land was given voluntarily, the petitioner
is not entitled for compensation.
6. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
04.12.2025
Shahid/
Uploaded on 05.12.2025
