Jharkhand High Court
Most. Rathiya Devi & Others vs Deputy Commissioner on 10 October, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No. 156 of 2018
Most. Rathiya Devi & Others ... ... Appellants
Versus
Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh now Ramgarh & Another
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Mitul Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Nawal Kishor Pandey, Advocate
---
th
05/10 October 2025
1. Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. With respect to surviving defect no. 1, the learned counsel for the
appellants has submitted that the certified copy of the judgment with
authentication fee has already been filed in the connected restoration
petition which is C.M.P. No. 892 of 2024. He submits that the case was
earlier dismissed for non-removal of defects within peremptory time.
3. Perused the records of C.M.P. No. 892 of 2024, office is directed to
place the certified copy, filed in C.M.P., in the present records.
Consequently, the defect no. 1 is hereby ignored.
4. With respect to party position regarding defect nos. 8 and 9, the
learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that he has filed
substitution petition being I.A. No. 4447 of 2022. He submits that the
awardee no. 1, namely, Bandhan Bedia, S/o Late Biglaha Bedia died on
24.02.2018; awardee no. 2, namely, Nirmal Bedia, S/o late Rewa Bedia
also died on 22.04.2017 and their legal heirs and representatives are the
appellant nos. 1 to 8 in the present proceedings. He submits that they may
be permitted to pursue the present proceedings and on account of death of
Bandhan Bedia and Nirmal Bedia, they have not been made party in the
proceedings.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection to the
aforesaid prayer.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions, the objection of office with
regard to defect nos. 8 and 9 are ignored and I.A. No. 4447 of 2022 is
hereby allowed.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that this
interlocutory application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of
28 days in filing this appeal.
8. He submits that many similar matters arising out of the same
proceedings and arising out of the same impugned order has been
disposed of by this Court and delay in those cases have also been
condoned. The learned counsel submits that the matter relates to
acquisition of land in village Kadru and appellants are the poor persons
and they have come before this Court seeking enhancement of
compensation.
9. He has referred to the judgment passed by this Court in F.A. No.
176 of 2018 and F.A. No. 174 of 2018. The learned counsel submits that
the delay be condoned and the present appeal itself be disposed of in the
same terms. He submits that the records of this case are already available
in F.A. No. 176 of 2018.
10. The learned counsel for the respondents has no serious objection, so
far as condonation of delay is concerned. He has also submitted that the
present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid two judgments cited by
the learned counsel for the appellants.
11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and being satisfied
with the cause shown, the delay of 28 days in filing this appeal is hereby
condoned and I.A. No. 2485 of 2022 is hereby allowed.
12. Post this case for final disposal on 13th October 2025 to be taken up
as the first case at 2:15 p.m.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul/-
